Jesus could do no deed of power there

2PhiloVoid said:

Yeah, but then we'd logically have to say (kind of?) that Jesus had nothing really to be angry about when He encountered resistance and unbelief face-to-face; for those unwitting folks, as unwitting as they were, had received no grace by which to believe.

Click to expand...

You will find his anger directed at those who tried to undo him.

In-Christ-Alone said:

Exactly what Reformed theology does

Click to expand...

It falls to you to demonstrate your assertion.

Clare73 said:

It falls to you to demonstrate your assertion.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that you agree with what Wayne Grudem says

Cormack said:

@Hmm was clearly using his definition of freewill when he says your use of scripture is an attempt to deny freewill, he’s not using your definition of freewill.

Click to expand...

It was no such thing, I addressed his statement that irresistible grace made no sense to him.

@Hmm’s understanding of freewill is counter causal, meaning the ability to do otherwise, which your verses do deny, as all Calvinistic uses of scripture deny.

Click to expand...

Then his whole construct is in error. He assumes that God constrains the will.

That's because he locates God's work in the will, rather than in the disposition.

"Free will" as presented in the Bible is the power to choose what one prefers, likes, desires without external constraint, what philosophy calls "free agency."
The Bible denies the "free will" of philosophy.

God works in the disposition changing our preferences and likes and, thereby, our wills choose freely accordingly, with no external constraint being applied to them. . .and, therefore, no free will being impaired.

public hermit said:

That makes intuitive sense, but aren't all slaves to sin? John 8:34, Romans 6:20

Click to expand...

If so, some slaves got healed and others did not.

public hermit said:

Pretty much, I think. Except if you add 11:32 to the mix it becomes single predestination...
"For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all."

I wonder why Calvinists don't come to that conclusion, but there it is.

Click to expand...

Because "may be" is not "will."

Clare73 said:

Free will is the power to choose what one prefers, likes, desires without external constraint.

Click to expand...

An assertion you fail to prove by simply presupposing your philosophy over scripture and then refusing to think in the categories that @Hmm was writing in.

You clearly didn’t understand the objection and continued to rattle off your own philosophically based definition of freewill, using the Bible as a grab bag of proof texts where the face value reading seemed applicable.

So, if you can’t think in @Hmm’s categories, you really can’t refute anything he writes until you learn. Otherwise you’re just an endless wealth of confusion and false definitions.

In-Christ-Alone said:

I don't see anywhere in the Bible that says the Lord causes us to sin.

Click to expand...

Agreed. . .

The above (post #122) is a second reply to your post, because my first reply (post #113) disappeared from the thread only to return again after post #122.

Clare73 said:

Agreed. . .

Click to expand...

so what is you point in #102, because what Grudem says actually makes God the author of our sins. His words, "God Can Ordain That We Carry Out Evil Deeds and Yet Hold Us Accountable for Them and Not be Blamed Himself", not only makes God the author of our sins, but also makes God unjust for punishing us for doing what He "ordains" that we do! Complete rubbish!

Clare73 said:

Because "may be" is not "will."

Click to expand...

"will" can also mean "desire"

Cormack said:

An assertion you fail to prove by simply presupposing your philosophy over scripture and then refusing to think in the categories that @Hmm was writing in.

You clearly didn’t understand the objection and continued to rattle off your own philosophically based definition of freewill,

Click to expand...

My use of "free will" is as presented in Scripture; i.e., free will is limited, which is the philosophical "free agency."

"He who sins is a slave to sin." (Jn 8:34) Slaves aren't totally free.

My presentation of free will is the Biblical one, not the philosophical one.

If you don't know the Scriptures, you are in no position to comment on what it shows regarding the human will.

If you do know the Scriptures, you don't understand the subject.

using the Bible as a grab bag of proof texts where the face value reading seemed applicable.

So, if you can’t think in @Hmm’s categories, you really can’t refute anything he writes until you learn. Otherwise you’re just an endless wealth of confusion and false definitions.

Click to expand...

This is a Biblical discussion, not a secular discussion.

My parameter is Biblical, not philosophical.

If you want to challenge it, do so Biblically.

2PhiloVoid said:

Well, it is a bit of a stretch, but even though I think Calvin went a little too far in extrapolating what he thought God's Sovereignty is, I can still understand the interpretive inclination in Calvin's mind to think this could be the case when we think about where Jesus says, "ALL (whom) the Father gives me will come to me ..." (John 6:37, and other verses that imply something similar).

Click to expand...

Hmm said:

I guess so. It's logical but the verses are taken out of context and so the conclusions are unrealistic and don't relate to the Biblical narrative as a whole.

Click to expand...

Principles don't depend on context, they are true regardless of context.

So think of all God's sovereignty over human choice, including "irresistible grace," in terms of disposition, rather than the will.

That God works in the dispositions of men is presented throughout the entire Bible; e.g.,
Genesis 20:6, Exodus 3:21; Deuteronomy 2:25, 30; Joshua 11:20; Proverbs 21:1;
Daniel 1:9; 2 Corinthians 8:16; Revelation 17:17, etc., etc., etc.

God does not override human will, he works in/changes the disposition so that it prefers, and therefore freely chooses to come, and freely chooses to believe.

There is no violation of Biblical free will by the sovereignty of God.

Clare73 said:

My definintion of "free will" comes from Scripture; i.e., free will is limited.

Click to expand...

Your definition of freewill was actually first articulated by Augustine and later by John Calvin, that’s why people label your view Calvinism.

Your definitions are your own, insofar that you believe in them, but they’re actually the product of a very easily defined history that goes back not to the Bible, but rather to well known theologians.

Famous Calvinists like Loraine Boettner (and even John Calvin himself) point out your views were only first articulated by “that spirit filled theologian of the West, saint Augustine.”

So no amount to assuming that the Bible originated your viewpoint makes it so. Your views were founded by theologians. Educated Calvinists are prepared to admit your definition of freewill was founded by theologians.

You might not like that your views were first articulated by theologians hundreds of years after Christ, but that’s no reason to drag scripture into poor philosophy.

Clare73 said:

If you want to challenge it, do so Biblically.

Click to expand...

How about the prayer Jesus taught us to say: why would we pray "your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." if we didn't have the capacity to act contrary to God's will?

d taylor said:

Try being more familiar with the Bible John 6:15 occurs after Matthew 12. In Matthew Jesus walking on the water is in chapter 14 and that is after Jesus is accused in Matthew 12 of doing His miracles by the power of demons.

Chapter 12 in Matthew is the turning point of Jesus and His ministry.

Click to expand...

Jesus' ministry looks no different after Mt 12 than it does before.

After Mt 12, we find large crowds gathered around him (Mt 13:1) whom he taught in parables
(Mt 13:3), teaching at the synagogue in his hometown (Mt 13:54), feeding 5,000 (Mt 14:19), teaching the Pharisees and teachers of the law (Mt 15:1), healing many (Mt 15:30) feeding 4,000
(Mt 15:35), teaching the Pharisees and Sadducees (Mt 16:1), healing boy with demon (Mt 17:15), large crowds and healing (Mt 19:2), large crowd and healing (Mt 20:29, 34), and then to Jerusalem for his sacrifice.

And you did not address Jesus not offering Israel a Messianic kingdom and rule!

Jesus rejected their offer of Messianic rule (Jn 6:15, 18:36 ) when they were going to take him by force and make him king.

Jesus said that his kingdom was not an earthly kingdom, that it was from another place (Jn 18:36), that it was spiritual, an invisible kingdom (Lk 17:20), within (Lk 17:21) the hearts of those where he reigns and rules.

Cormack said:

Your definition of freewill was actually first articulated by Augustine and later by John Calvin, that’s why people label your view Calvinism.

Your definitions are your own, insofar that you believe in them, but they’re actually the product of a very easily defined history that goes back not to the Bible, but rather to well known theologians.

Famous Calvinists like Loraine Boettner (and even John Calvin himself) point out your views were only first articulated by “that spirit filled theologian of the West, saint Augustine.”

So no amount to assuming that the Bible originated your viewpoint makes it so. Your views were founded by theologians. Educated Calvinists are prepared to admit your definition of freewill was founded by theologians.

Click to expand...

Is this the Augustine who taught the heretical view of the Ransom Theory of Jesus' Death?

Clare73 said:

Free will is the power to choose what one prefers, likes, desires without external constraint.

Click to expand...

39 And going a little farther, he threw himself on the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want.”

public hermit said:

True, but by the same reasoning it doesn't mean "won't."

Click to expand...

That has no meaning in this context.