There is no Free Will PERIOD

[Mark Quayle]

So what you’re really saying is that the reason I’m not familiar with that verse is because it doesn’t exist. There is no verse that says that we can’t repent.

If you are not IN HIM, regenerated, go ahead and repent! But your repentance is only temporal, and not of the Spirit, but of the Flesh, and done out of enmity with God.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Because Paul's letters are not to "natural men," they are to Christians, who are "spiritual men," in whom the Holy Spirit works repentance (Php 2:3).

Christians are not the "natural man," they are the "spiritual man," indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who must engage the power of the Holy Spirit against their flesh.

This passage has nothing to do with repentance.

“Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.”
‭‭Philippians‬ ‭2‬:‭3‬-‭4‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

However this passage does.

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭1‬:‭16‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[BNR32FAN]

If you are not IN HIM, regenerated, go ahead and repent! But your repentance is only temporal, and not of the Spirit, but of the Flesh, and done out of enmity with God.

Are you suggesting that repentance comes from setting your mind on the flesh?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Clare73 said:
God decreed at creation that perfect, sinless man would be able to choose obedience or disobedience.
Adam's choice of disobedience guaranteed from that point on what man's fallen nature would prefer and, therefore, choose. . . disobedience.

Just because man is fallen and cannot obey God does not mean that man does not necessarily owe God obedience and, therefore,
even if fallen man cannot pay, God is just in requiring of man what he owes God, what is due to God, even if man cannot pay it.

And who ordained that man could choose, whereby man squandered his spiritual well being?
And who ordained that God would show forth the glory of his goodness in the redemption of men from this disaster?

God has ordained the conditions whereby man is allowed to disobey him.

Do you need a complete study on the meaning of "God's Decree"? God's decree is not revealed to his temporal creatures except as time reveals. If something happens, it is because God has decreed it. There is no verse saying, "God decreed at creation that perfect, sinless man would be able to choose obedience or disobedience." There are only self-evident facts to that end, and many relevant statements and tangential concepts throughout scripture to that effect.

There is no verse that says that man didn’t have a sinful nature when he was created. The scriptures teach us that every man had a sinful nature from the very first to the very last. You’re getting this error from your doctrines not from the scriptures. Everyone else in this thread has declined to address these verses pertaining to God’s decree, what about you? Will you ignore them as well?


““See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the Lord your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it. But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess it. I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,”

‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭30‬:‭15‬-‭19‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬



““Go and speak to David, ‘Thus the Lord says, “I am offering you three things; choose for yourself one of them, which I will do to you.” ’ ””

‭‭2 Samuel‬ ‭24‬:‭12‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬



“I will destine you for the sword, And all of you will bow down to the slaughter. Because I called, but you did not answer; I spoke, but you did not hear. And you did evil in My sight And chose that in which I did not delight.””

‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭65‬:‭12‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬



“They have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, and it did not come into My mind.”

‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭7‬:‭31‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[HarleyER]

And again this doesn’t make any sense at all since the word synergy means a cooperative effort. Man cannot be saved by his efforts alone and God cannot save anyone without their cooperation because God Himself has decreed that man must cooperate with Him in order to receive salvation. So in reality I haven’t ignored either party’s participation.

and God cannot save anyone without their cooperation because God Himself has decreed that man must cooperate with Him in order to receive salvation.

Where exactly is this decreed stated? And where does it say God can't do something that He really, really wants to do?

 

[BNR32FAN]

and God cannot save anyone without their cooperation because God Himself has decreed that man must cooperate with Him in order to receive salvation.

Where exactly is this decreed stated? And where does it say God can't do something that He really, really wants to do?

1 Timothy 2:3-4 and 2 Peter 3:9 make it abundantly clear who God wants to save. The decree that only those who repent will be saved is found in John 3:16 and Romans 1:16, they make it abundantly clear who will be saved. I don’t have time to quote all the verses right now but the scriptures also say that Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, He is the Savior of the world, He died for all men. It is by God’s design that repentance is necessary for salvation.

 

[Clare73]

This passage has nothing to do with repentance.

It has to do with everything that is pleasing to God, including repentance, which the natural man (i.e. without the Holy Spirit) is unable to do (Ro 8:7-8).

 

[BNR32FAN]

It has to do with everything that is pleasing to God, including repentance, which the natural man (i.e. without the Holy Spirit) is unable to do (Ro 8:7-8).

“See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the Lord your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it. But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess it. I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,”

‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭30‬:‭15‬-‭19‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Here’s the words of God Himself saying “I HAVE SET BEFORE YOU LIFE AND DEATH SO CHOOSE”. I don’t understand how you can’t see that your theology not only contradicts the scriptures, but also defies all logic and reasoning, as well as profanes the very nature and character of God. I just don’t understand how people fall into Calvin’s mess. Jesus and the apostles went around telling everyone to repent and because you can’t interpret a handful of passages correctly you believe that we aren’t even capable of repentance. It’s like it doesn’t matter how ridiculous and illogical it is, your doctrine teaches it and that’s all that matters to you.

 

[Clare73]

“See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity;

God was talking to his own people, in whom he worked.

in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the Lord your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it. But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess it. I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,”

‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭30‬:‭15‬-‭19‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Here’s the words of God Himself saying “I HAVE SET BEFORE YOU LIFE AND DEATH SO CHOOSE”. I don’t understand how you can’t see that your theology not only contradicts the scriptures, but also defies all logic and reasoning, as well as profanes the very nature and character of God. I just don’t understand how people fall into Calvin’s mess. Jesus and the apostles went around telling everyone to repent and because you can’t interpret a handful of passages correctly you believe that we aren’t even capable of repentance. It’s like it doesn’t matter how ridiculous and illogical it is, your doctrine teaches it and that’s all that matters to you.

 

[BNR32FAN]

God was talking to his own people, in whom he worked.

So some of them were going to resist His offer of grace? Why is he saying choose either life or death?

 

[Rose_bud]

That is an entirely fair question and my answer might seem a bit abitrary. It's a rather long story, but the reading the Scriptures from a Reformed perspective seem to make the most sense, especially John and Romans. The monergistic theology is more put together than a synergistic theology. (It is difficult to find a synergistic systematic theology implemented by a council.) Finally, the Eastern Church always held to a synergistic view, while the Western Church, at one time, held to a monergistic view. The gospel, in the Scriptures always moved east to west, never west to east. I know this last point is a bit odd, but it was an interesting minor point in my decision.

I understand, this is your approach and I respect it. My perspective on this (as shared previously) is that while human teachings have merit, they should aid in testing, not become the ultimate authority. I am weary of elevating this above the guidance of the Spirit and Scripture. Also have you considered the context in which they wrote and the presuppositions behind their views.

On a side note, I think the West tends to impose its theology universally, assuming a single context for humanity. This is a major critique in contextual theology. I agree with theologians that seek the timeless principles in the text, as God's timeless principles can be applied across contexts.

Also have you tried reading Romans and John through the lens of synergism? You may be surprised to discover God is a lot more relational than you think. Yes you can ask me to do the same

I understand that you believe our cooperation is not a form of works-based salvation. But it is still a response that needs to be given by us to God. So, essentially, in the final analysis we have to give God at the very least a response.

Im not sure how this statement is aligned with the monergistic view? The response we give God is not forced, manipulate or coerced. Rather it is given freely. We therefor have the capacity to reject His offer. God bears upon us untill we are overwhelmed by who He is that we respond positively. Therefore, since He is so persistent and patient, the rejection of His presence, is of greater condemnation and severe judgement. But in Christ we are empowered to do as He says, love as He loves.

Do I believe God responds to Himself? I believe that God commands and we follow. God tells Matthew, "Come, follow me." and Matthew gets up, leaves everything and follows. God call Peter and John and tells them I will make you fishers of men and they leave everything. Samson didn't even have a choice as he was chosen before even being born. It's just the way it is. If the choice was left up to me I probably would have goof it up.

Yes, He initiates, calls, and invites. We respond, surrender, and yield all of our faculties to His purposes. It is something they did in response to the call. God did not respond to Himself.
Samson serves as an example of God's deliverance for a nation who chose to continuously rebel against Him, yet He delivers them. The context for what is happening with Samson is found in Judges 2:10-23. If anything, it shows how God is merciful and long-suffering to a people who continually rejected Him, but yet the consequences of disobedience have to be upheld (Deuteronomy 29-30). We already agreed God is not the author of evil or hard hearts. It's a result of the choice offered them in Deuteronomy 30:15. But God, in His mercy, raises up judges to deliver them when they cry out to Him. God sovereignly worked through Samson's decisions, even his weaknesses, to achieve His larger purpose of delivering Israel. We know none of the judges were perfect. I see Samson's story demonstrating that God's sovereignty is not thwarted by human weaknesses or failure but rather, it's demonstrated through His ability to work through and with human choices and still maintain who He is. Faithful.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Do I believe God responds to Himself? I believe that God commands and we follow. God tells Matthew, "Come, follow me." and Matthew gets up, leaves everything and follows. God call Peter and John and tells them I will make you fishers of men and they leave everything. Samson didn't even have a choice as he was chosen before even being born. It's just the way it is. If the choice was left up to me I probably would have goof it up.

How can you apply this logic to the rest of scripture where God is constantly giving man commandments and man is repeatedly disobeying. What we actually see in scripture is God commanding everyone to obey and very few of them actually comply. You would say that the 12 apostles obeyed Jesus because He commanded them to do so yet Jesus also commanded the unbelieving Jews and Pharisees to believe and they refused. You’re only looking at the very few passages where people actually obeyed God and ignoring the majority of passages where people didn’t even tho they were specifically commanded to do so.

 

[Clare73]

So some of them were going to resist His offer of grace?

Grace is not an offering. . .grace is an operation within the elect.

Why is he saying choose either life or death?

Warnings are one of the ways God keeps his people from perishing.
The elect heed the warnings, the non-elect do not.

 

[Panthers]

Grace is not an offering. . .grace is an operation within the elect.

I interpreted the "Grace" of God to be the Grey's from space.
Everywhere I see Grace in the Bible, it is easily imagined/substituted for Grey's from Space(Heaven).
Revelation 22:21

The Grey's were mentioned in the book of Revelation, as the be-st of the Sea; the 7 names of blasphemy being,
Revelation 13:1
#1 E.-.
#2 U.F.-
#3 U.-.P
#4 T-c Tac
#5 C-gar
#6 Al-en
#7 M-rtian

Warnings are one of the ways God keeps his people from perishing.
The elect heed the warnings, the non-elect do not.

How many elect are there? 24 or 144,000?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
If you are not IN HIM, regenerated, go ahead and repent! But your repentance is only temporal, and not of the Spirit, but of the Flesh, and done out of enmity with God.

Are you suggesting that repentance comes from setting your mind on the flesh?

Man! How in the world do you DO this??? Do you honestly think that is what I meant, or that what I said reduces to that????

I said, "If you are not IN HIM, [that is,] regenerated...your repentance is...of the Flesh [and not of the Spirit]." Would it help you understand if I had put the word, "repentance", in scare-quotes? I'm not talking about true repentance; my point was that those who are not IN HIM (i.e. the lost) cannot truly repent of sin. They MUST be born again! If your response is not disingenous, then I have to conclude that you don't see the difference between the mind of the lost and the mind of the born again.

Your response is worse than merely moving the goalposts.

 

[Mark Quayle]

There is no verse that says that man didn’t have a sinful nature when he was created. The scriptures teach us that every man had a sinful nature from the very first to the very last. You’re getting this error from your doctrines not from the scriptures. Everyone else in this thread has declined to address these verses pertaining to God’s decree, what about you? Will you ignore them as well?

You have been answered these multiple times in the past. Your verses are irrelevant to the subject. You consider them relevant because you think the lost have the same ability to will what the born-again have. You are dead wrong about that.

““See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the Lord your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it. But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess it. I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,”

‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭30‬:‭15‬-‭19‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

This, like most of the below, is not about salvation. It is about obeying the law.

““Go and speak to David, ‘Thus the Lord says, “I am offering you three things; choose for yourself one of them, which I will do to you.” ’ ””

‭‭2 Samuel‬ ‭24‬:‭12‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

How many times do you have to be told before you hear it, that the ability to choose does not imply free will, (nor, in this context, does it negate God's decree?) ???

“I will destine you for the sword, And all of you will bow down to the slaughter. Because I called, but you did not answer; I spoke, but you did not hear. And you did evil in My sight And chose that in which I did not delight.””

‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭65‬:‭12‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

And this is supposed to prove what? Can you show me the logical progression how this demonstrates whatever it is that you think it proves?

“They have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, and it did not come into My mind.”

‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭7‬:‭31‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

This you have been answered on, repeatedly. No wonder nobody bothers to answer you anymore on these! You ignore what is told you, then continue to post as though you were undefeated!

Grammatically, contextually, and logically, in English, ‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭7‬:‭31 ends with, "...it did not enter my mind to command such a thing!"

 

[zoidar]

How can one prove by demonstration the myriad causes influencing your choice? I'd guess the fact you like coffee had something to do with it, and maybe I could guess at a few other influences, but why you like coffee, I don't know (nor why I do), but I am sure that too is caused, and not merely a plucked-out-of-thin-air random happening. My reason for denying libertarian free choice is simple. All things after First Cause (God) are caused effects. To claim otherwise is to deny what is central to science and reasoning, not to mention that it denies God's utter authority over all fact.

I don't think you fully got my point. I like both coffee and tea. What makes me choose coffee this morning? I can tell you what doesn't. No desire for coffee or thought of coffee actually makes me choose coffee. What makes me choose coffee is wanting the most to make the choice for coffee. So you need to answer what it is that makes someone want to choose coffee the most (Not just want coffee the most, but want to choose coffee the most). Sure, that decision is influenced by thoughts and desires, but what would it be that actually causes me to make that decision, to want to choose it the most? I know you can't give me the thousand things influncing me to make a choice, but I don't see how a higher number of causes would be proving me "wanting the most to make the choice for coffee" more likely to be caused by previous cause.

Science has its limits. It can not even explain what consciousness is (or energy for that matter). Why would science be able to explain free libertarian will?

Mark Quayle said:
What proves our choices are predetermined is simply that there is no such thing as chance, and that all things descend causally from the First Cause (God). There is also the character of God and his active intent (creating) vs the idea of passively watching a project. He had in mind to make something particular, and he made it. We are not privy to the whole line of causation from first effects becoming secondary causes and so on. Only that the only truly spontaneous thing is God himself. EVERYTHING else is effect. And this does not preclude choice, but establishes our choices. Quite literally, apart from him (in this context, apart from his causation) we can do nothing.

He is the source of very existence and life. How can we assume ourselves to be smaller first causes?

To me free libertarian will is part of being a conscious creature. I wouldn't be surprised if everything conscious has free libertarian will (as far as I use the term).

Edit: It seems to be called "Panlibertarianism" or "Universal Libertarianism" when you believe all conscious beings inherently have free will.

I know you've heard me say this before: Chance is logically self-contradictory. "It is only a shortcut for, 'I don't know'." Simple as that. We have choice, not independence. It matters because libertarian free will depends on mere chance, regardless of whatever principles anyone thinks are necessary for responsibility/accountability regarding sin/choices.

If free libertarian will was depending on mere chance it would not be free libertarian will. Then you are using the term wrong. Mere chance does not make us responsible anymore than mere determination makes us responsible, which to say is: not the very least.

But try to see this look at it: God created all things. All fact subsequent to Himself is dependent upon him for its very existence. The laws of nature are what they are because GOD CREATED. The laws of logic and math are what they are because GOD CREATED. Beauty, and Joy, are what they are because GOD CREATED. Fact is what it is because GOD CREATED. (I don't take you for a Deist, who seem to think that God created all fact, then backed away and fact is not in and of itself something totally independent of God's sustaining it). If we choose, (and I agree we do), it is because of and according to causes that came before it.

If I argue with believers who don't know I am a believer, that this or that they did was influenced and otherwise dependent on what came before their choice to do that thing, they are often inclined to agree, unless they are already in a mode to defend their notion of independent self-determination. But when I put God at the head of those myriad chains of causation that led up to their choice, suddenly they throw a fit! But logically, it simply makes perfect sense that our choices are caused.

So we are left with your objection, that it doesn't seem fair to blame someone for doing what he is caused to do. I'm sorry, but it is a human construction that sees blame and right and wrong as the end of thinking on the matter. What God's commands are for, is not for testing one's resolve or nature, but for demonstrating our need for the Savior, as we ALL fall short. Those that prove out, such as the testing of Abraham, was the testing of his [regenerated] faith. Not his libertarian free will, and not his independent self-determination.

I didn't say anything about what is fair or not. I just said we can't be responsible if there is no free will outside predetermination. I'm not saying it can't be the way you put it, it can, but if you are right then logically, I don't think we at the same time can be responsible. If we are, then what logically might be morally wrong to man might be morally right to God, which makes God's moral a mystery and we can't trust our moral compass. If we by some mysterious way are still responsible for something that is against our logic and common sense, we, at least I would have to question God's character.

Whether we by free libertarian will can respond to the gospel or need to be regenerated first is another question. I don't think our view on free will has to give an answer to that.

(That is, of course, an oversimplification, as there are many other reasons for the command, such as both mere compliance and utter rejection of law witness to the fallen individual concerning God's purity and justice.)

 

[BNR32FAN]

Grace is not an offering. . .grace is an operation within the elect.

Warnings are one of the ways God keeps his people from perishing.
The elect heed the warnings, the non-elect do not.

If grace is not an offering why is He telling them to choose? The choice is their’s that’s exactly what God is telling them.

“See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the Lord your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it. But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess it. I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,”

‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭30‬:‭15‬-‭19‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[HarleyER]

1 Timothy 2:3-4 and 2 Peter 3:9 make it abundantly clear who God wants to save. The decree that only those who repent will be saved is found in John 3:16 and Romans 1:16, they make it abundantly clear who will be saved. I don’t have time to quote all the verses right now but the scriptures also say that Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, He is the Savior of the world, He died for all men. It is by God’s design that repentance is necessary for salvation.

I think we've been through this. Yes, God wants EVERYONE to be save. Man, on the other hand, doesn't want to be save. We love our sin too much. (John 3:19).

Now if we had a free choice, given the abover scenario, NO ONE would be saved. If you would have asked Paul if he wanted to be a Christian two minutes before his Damascus Road trip, you probably would have bee clapped in irons.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Man! How in the world do you DO this??? Do you honestly think that is what I meant, or that what I said reduces to that????

No I don’t believe that is what you meant, the purpose of my statement was to indicate that repentance is setting your mind on the Spirit.