Free Will - God's test that all mankind flunks

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Good grief Clare, infant children are not poisonous or comparable to rattlesnakes. Rattlesnakes are not our enemies, they are one of God's creatures but you should give them the respect they deserve and I think you are misinterpreting Eph.2:3 just as you do Rom. 5.
Feigned desperation compounded with a desperate argument, a fig leaf for unbelief.

Non responsive to my point regarding our nature, with which we are born, making us objects of God's wrath (post #788).

Assertion without Biblical demonstration is without Biblical merit, and cannot to be taken seriously (not to mention the feignedness).

You simply don't believe that the fallen nature with which we are born as enemies of God by nature, as stated in Ephesians 2:3, is true.

Exegete Romans 5:12-15 being true to Paul's words, the reasoning of his argument and the context.

Demonstrate the meaning of "by nature" in Ephesians 2:3, being true to its context.

Short of that, it's all hat and no cowboy.
They can't herd cattle.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: JIMINZ
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I think Cain and Able were supposed to be making offerings that correlated to the shed blood of animals that God used as a covering for Adam and Eve which correlate to Christ's shed blood on the cross which is a covering for us. Able did but Cain did not.
So it seems they offered sacrifice simply as a form of voluntary worship, Abel's sacrifice being with faith and Cain's without faith (Hebrews 11:4).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

TedT

Member since Job 38:7
Jan 11, 2021
1,850
334
Vancouver Island
✟85,846.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Clare73 said:
Did I not state that we are born in spiritual death, which is why we must be reborn into eternal life?
Just as we are born with a fallen nature?
They come together in one package, and are remedied with the same remedy--new birth. . .into a regenerate nature and eternal life.

We are born with our nature.

I find this to all to be agreeable except that we must have gotten into the state of spiritual death needing to be reborn by our own free will choice to be sinful and not by HIS will in any manner at all. Otherwise HIS good name is blasphemed as the creator of our evil.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Clare73 said:
Did I not state that we are born in spiritual death, which is why we must be reborn into eternal life?
Just as we are born with a fallen nature?
They come together in one package, and are remedied with the same remedy--new birth. . .into a regenerate nature and eternal life.
I find this to all to be agreeable except that we must have gotten into the state of spiritual death needing to be reborn by our own free will
Then we weren't born in spiritual death. . .and this is not all "agreeable."
And where is this law of "free will" found in Scripture?
choice to be sinful and not by HIS will in any manner at all.
Otherwise HIS good name is blasphemed as the creator of our evil.
That is simply human sentiment (not to mention faulty reasoning), not divine revelation.
Human sentiment must not drive our theology.

You are saying that we are born with eternal life.
But that is what the rebirth is--into eternal life of/by the Holy Spirit.

There is no eternal life in the unregenerate fallen human nature with which are are born.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Thanks for the conversation and patience Clare.
So you were just making conversation?

Put up. . .or bow out. . .you've made your choice. . .and I accept that choice.
 
Last edited:
  • Prayers
Reactions: TedT
Upvote 0

JIMINZ

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2017
6,600
2,358
79
Southern Ga.
✟157,715.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
As a sinner reborn
Also a reborn sinner

Where in all of Scripture did you find the understanding that you can be a Reborn Sinner?

There is no such person alive today, for it would be a contradiction of what a Believer has become when he becomes Reborn.

A Believer who has become Born Again has ceased from sin.

Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

1Pe_4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
 
Upvote 0

3 Resurrections

That's 666 YEARS, folks
Aug 21, 2021
1,838
294
Taylors
✟84,420.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Fallen nature and spiritual death-->eternal death are inherited from Adam who lost the original nature and spiritual life for us. The two come together in one package, at birth, and are not imputed after birth.

Are you sure that this "at birth", Clare73? Wouldn't that be "at conception", according to David the prophet? ("In sin did my mother conceive me...")

Even a one-celled human in the womb is in need of a Savior. We know this, since death has passed upon these one-celled children as well.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Are you sure that this "at birth", Clare73? Wouldn't that be "at conception", according to David the prophet? ("In sin did my mother conceive me...")

Even a one-celled human in the womb is in need of a Savior. We know this, since death has passed upon these one-celled children as well.
Yes, you are absolutely correct.
I was speaking in terms of the common understanding of the beginning of one's life, not in terms of the scientific fact of its beginning in the one-celled zygote.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,565
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There is nothing illogical about: as it relates to sin/righteousness,

There is nothing illogical about: as it relates to sin/righteousness,

To the contrary, your intial view is illogical. But your rephrasing is also illogical.

NOW you say:
you have the moral power (will) to choose many moral actions; i.e., you are a moral free agent, but you do not have the moral power (will) to choose all moral actions

Yes, exactly a point I’ve made repeatedly about your argument, and it’s irrational.

“Free” logically means to be “free,” to mean “not under the control or in the power of somebody else; able to do what you want…free to do something…free from something…free of something” Oxford English Dictionary. Or as Plantinga stated, whose meaning is commensurate with Oxford’s entry for “free,” “a person is free with respect to a given action, then he is free to perform that action and free to refrain from performing it; no antecedent conditions and/or causal laws determine that he will perform form the action, or that he won't. It is within his power, at the time in question, to take or perform the action and within his power to refrain from it.”

But your “free” moral agent, isn’t free, and you’ve specifically stated they aren’t free as some choices /actions are determined for them. Some choices/actions they MUST make. Some choices/actions are Forced upon them to make. For some choices/actions they cannot choose to do the opposite.

Hence, it doesn’t make any sense to characterize the as “free” a condition in which people Must choose/act and people are Forced to choose/act. To the contrary, what you’ve stated establishes people are not in fact free.

A necessary assumption of my rebuttal is to say people are “free” to choose/act means they are free to choose/act in regards to all their choices and actions. This is a rational assumption.

By way of example, Dicapario handcuffed to a pipe in Titantic was, by your logic, a “free” person to decide/act. After all, while handcuffed he can make many decisions, whether to squat, stand, yell, bang his handcuffs on the pipe, look out the window, kick his legs, scratch his head, etcetera. Yet, he isn’t free for some other choices, such as whether to leave or stay, when to eat, what to eat, whether to sit at the desk or on the floor, whether to lay down, etcetera. DiCaprio isn’t free as some choices/conduct is determined for him, forced upon him, while handcufffed to the pipe.

And your logic is to handcuff people to some choices/actions in which the person has no freedom to make a different choice/action and that isn’t to be “free,” regardless if they are “free” to make other choices/action.

Your reasoning is exactly the reasoning Plantinga derided with his prison analogy. Your reasoning leads to the illogical assessment the prisoner in chains, in a secure facility, under 24 hour surveillance, designed to keep people in, with armed men who may shoot a prisoner for attempting to escape, is “free” despite the fact some of their decisions/actions they must make, are forced upon them to make.

Your reasoning leads to those incongruences, to those irrational outcomes.

Your logic necessarily means peoples’ choice to sin or not to sin is determined for them. (I pause here to interject how your POV is unrefined. Which decision(s) to sin are determined? Is it the very first one? Are there any more? Did A and E have the ability to not sin but chose freely to do so?) The result of your logic is the loving and just God has condemned humanity to death for a sinful decision they didn’t make but were forced to make. The result of your is God created the conditions in which people MUST sin and is punishing people for what God did, creating people that MUST sin.

And as Macke observed, a loving and just God has the ability to create only those people who will always choose to not sin, just as God, by your logic, chose to create people whose decision to sin or not sin was already determined for them, and determined the people would choose sin. Well, if God can create people who are determined to sin, then God can create people who are determined to never sin and that way spare his creation from his wrath, a wrath that is the product of his own making in creating people determined to sin rather than creating people determined not to sin.

The only way to address Macke’s argument the God of the Bible is unjust and not all loving for allowing sin and evil is by the Free Will Defense of Plantinga, and his notion of free will.

Your notion of free will results in the God of the Bible being wrathful for what he directly caused to happen, people sinning, by creating people determined to sin.

It's not about logic. It's about NT revelation, of which your grasp has a limp.

Logic plays an indispensable role to properly read and interpret Scripture and drawing deductions and inferences from the Scriptures. If my argument has a limp, you have not demonstrated the limp. Neither do the verses you cite to establish any limp in my argument.

John 8:34” So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly My disciples; 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”33 They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, ‘You will become free’?”

34 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin.”

Context is important to properly interpreting a text. The Greek meaning of the words of the NT, the NT was composed in Greek, Koine Greek to be exact, is important to understanding what the NT text says. The Greek meaning in conjunction with the context does not support your POV.

Jesus is not asserting people MUST choose sin and have no choice in the matter. Rather, the meaning and context is contrasting two groups of people and in such a manner that is consistent with the notion of free will I have presented.

First the Greek for “commit” means to “practice.” The Greek meaning for the verb form of the word “practice” is “repetition…regular practice…routine or habit…done habitually…”

So, Jesus’ literal comments in Greek mean, pas ho poiōn ho hamartia doulos ho hamartia, and that literally means "everyone who routinely does sin is a slave to sin” or “habitually does sin” or “regularly does sin.”

Now, the word “slave” in Greek has a meaning of describing a relationship between people. The Greek word for slave and its meaning isn’t and does not speak to whether people have free will to make their choices or whether their choices are determined for them, forced upon them, as it relates to their metaphysical relationship to God, sin, punishment, etcetera.

And the argument you’ve made before of slaves not being “free” is nothing but a referral to the legal recognition they are owned by another person. The legality doesn’t indicate, as it relates to God, that people must or are forced to choose sin.

The context in which Jesus is speaking supports the notion Jesus isn’t using the word “slave” to mean people must or are forced to choose sin.

Jesus spoke in the conditional of if X, then Y. “If you continue in My word, then you are truly My disciples; 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”33

The Greek word for “continue” is “to stay…remain…to not depart.” This is a Greek word John used over 17 times between the Gospel of John, John 1 and 2, and did so to say “do not depart” which is to “remain in…stay in” Jesus’ Word. Jesus is saying 1.) IF they do not depart from His word, 2.) Then they will know the Truth and be free from habitually sinning. The point here is the disciples are to “not depart” or “continue in…remain in.”

The admonishment by Jesus to the disciples to not depart from, remain in, is consistent with freely choosing to do so. They freely choose to remain, they feeely choose to not depart, and in doing so, they are not habitually sinning. This group of people freely choosing to remain in Jesus, of course, comes with a decision to believe in Jesus. Logically, one cannot depart from or remain without first coming to Jesus, a free choice.

Indeed, we see in verse 30 others came to believe. “As He said these things, many came to believe in Him.” The literal Greek is, “These things of His speaking, many believed in Him.” Believed in Greek means, as used in the verse, “to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in, of the thing believed.” This necessarily means before hearing Jesus “many” did not believe but upon hearing him “many” did believe. The notion they freely chose to believe is consistent with the text, which is to say nothing contradicts freely choosing.

The disciples and “many” are contrasted with those who habitually sin. Logically, to contrast the two groups, the latter group of people habitually sinning are choosing to do so as their free choice, is the opposite of remaining in Jesus’ Word and the results are derivatives of the two groups free choices.

So, the context is contrasting those habitually sinning, et. all, with those who are “set free” from sinning habitually by follwoing Jesus’ “Word,” which results in knowing the “truth” and the “truth” results in freedom from habitually sinning. They are slaves, slaves is a relationship to someone, for Christ, their relationship is to Jesus, adherence to him, which frees them from a relationship of habitually sinning. The freedom is from the relation of habitually sinning, and that freedom is attained by “continuing” a relationship in Jesus’ teachings and Scripture, which means the slave aspect is in regards to two kinds of relationships, slave/relationship to Jesus, or slave/relation to ha habitually sinning. And consistent with that relationship is freely choosing the relationship.

Simply, there’s nothing in John 8:31-34 supporting your view.

God is not responsible for your condemnation, Adam is.
God offers the only remedy for Adam's squandering of your inheritance

Not really, as I explain below.

We are born judged, sentenced and condemned by Adam's sin (Romans 5:18, Romans 5:12-14).

Adam’s sin is not imputed onto us or his progeny. Neither is the penalty of physical death imputed onto us on the basis of Adam’s view. You espouse a view parallel if not identical to Original Sin. Your view and that of Original sin, as you expressed it above, finds no basis in the plain text or the Greek.

Theologically, your statement we are judged and condemned as a result of Adam’s sin is very contentious. A basis of the disagreement is “through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned,” Romans 5:12

Your approach is ostensibly to assume whatever version of the Bible/NT you’ve quoted from that the translation of the Greek is correct. This is a dubious assumption since the Koine Greek is the NT was written in is ancient and composed over nearly 2,000 years ago, Paul’s letters included.

The human language is complex, with idioms, metaphors, allegories, synonyms, multiple meanings for words, context and word usage.

The fact is the verses you cite, and the meaning you attribute to them, is not unambiguously inferred from the text and neither is your meaning a must based on the plain text.

A reasonable reading of the plain text passage of 5:12 is death spread to all but not because of Adam, but because all humans have sinned and as a result of their sin, death. Indeed, that meaning is how “so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned,” reasonably reads. Death comes to all mankind because they all sinned.

Now, what is the original Greek meaning?

The Koine Greek “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον, eph’ ho pantes hemarton,” “death spread to all” is ambiguous and the subject of scholarly debate. The debate as to the proper interpretation is not contemporary and dates as far back to Irenaeus and Augustine.

The Greek “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ” was interpreted by Augustine to say, “spread to all people who sinned in Adam.” This interpretation supports Augustine’s doctrine of Original Sin and is a view consistent with what you’ve said so far.

But the scholarly work and opinion of Schreiner in is book, “Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament,” identifies two flaws with Augustine’s less than accurate reading of the Greek. “First, the antecedent ἀνθρώπου is so far away that it is dubious to identify it as the antecedent to ᾧ. Second, the word ἐν rather than ἐϕʼ would have been used if Paul had intended to say that “in” Adam all sinned.”

As Schreiner states, “But the verb ἁμαρτάνειν with the subject πάντες also tells against the view that the reference is to the sin people committed corporately in Adam as well. The verb refers regularly to voluntary sin that people commit in their own persons (cf. 2: 12; 3: 23; see Wilckens 1978: 316–17; Käsemann 1980: 148–49; Jüngel 1963: 51–52; Fitzmyer 1993c: 417). It is quite improbable on linguistic grounds that “all sinned” means “all sinned in Adam.” Wedderburn (1972–73: 351) argues that the connection between the sin of Adam and the rest of humanity is conveyed by the first part of verse 12 and not the latter part of the verse. The most natural way to construe πάντες ἥμαρτον is to see a reference to the personal and individual sin of all people.[ 7] According to Wedderburn, the last part of verse 12 is concerned first of all to show that death spread to all people because they all sinned voluntarily in their own persons.“

And Schreiner shares in the voluntary sinful conduct by all humanity as the correct interpretation based on usage, meaning, sentence structure, and Paul’s writings habits.

Schreiner also finds, in the Greek, word usage, writing habits, sentence structure, Paul’s explanation of why all people have voluntarily sinned and hence, subject to physical death. “When Paul says “all sinned,” he indeed means that every human being has personally sinned…As a result of Adam’s sin death entered the world and engulfed all people; all people enter the world alienated from God and spiritually dead by virtue of Adam’s sin. By virtue of entering the world in the state of death (i.e., separated from God), all human beings sin. This understanding of the text confirms the view of scholars who insist that original death is more prominent than “original sin” in this text.[ 8] The personal sin of human beings is explained by the sway death holds over us. Such an interpretation is also supported by the notion that death is a power that reigns and rules over us now (Rom. 5: 14, 17) and that culminates in physical death. Moreover, Paul says specifically in 5: 15 that human beings “died” because of the trespass of Adam. Our alienation and separation from God are due to Adam’s sin, and thus we sin as a result of being born into the world separated from God’s life.

In other words, we will inevitably choose sin by our own volition because A) we are born in a world of sin B) alienated from God and as a result C) we will voluntarily choose sin.

So, my view is free will isn’t toothless but rather has support in Scripture, including but not limited to those specific Romans verses.

Your idea, and that of Augustine, of original sin and we must sin is “toothless” as it has no basis in the Greek scriptures, no basis in Judaism, and was never on the chess board as a viable theological doctrine rooted in Scripture.

My view of free will and sin find support in the Greek NT and Judaism’s concepts of sin, death, and punishment.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: misput
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
To the contrary, your initial view is illogical. But your rephrasing is also illogical.

NOW you say:

Yes, exactly a point I’ve made repeatedly about your argument, and it’s irrational.

“Free” logically means to be “free,”
That's a lot of work. . .

First of all, the domain here is morality.
We are not (totally) morally "free," we are moral "free agents" capable of executing freely.
to mean “not under the control or in the power of somebody else; able to do what you want…free to do something…free from something…free of something” Oxford English Dictionary.
It's not about the Oxford Dictionary, it's about Greek and Roman philosophy.
Or as Plantinga stated, whose meaning is commensurate with Oxford’s entry for “free,” “a person is free with respect to a given action, then he is free to perform that action and free to refrain from performing it; no antecedent conditions and/or causal laws determine that he will perform form the action, or that he won't. It is within his power, at the time in question, to take or perform the action and within his power to refrain from it.”
Precisely, in total agreement with Oxford.
And mankind enjoys that freedom in many things, but he cannot choose to be sinless.
But your “free” moral agent, isn’t free, and you’ve specifically stated they aren’t free as some choices /actions are determined for them. Some choices/actions they MUST make. Some choices/actions are Forced upon them to make. For some choices/actions they cannot choose to do the opposite.
And that is precisely the philosophical difference between "free" and "free agent."
Hence, it doesn’t make any sense to characterize the as “free” a condition in which people Must choose/act and people are Forced to choose/act. To the contrary, what you’ve stated establishes people are not in fact free.
Precisely, "free agents" are not free in all things, only the "free" are such.
And the NT denies mankind is "free" in that regard (John 8:34-36).
A necessary assumption of my rebuttal is to say people are “free” to choose/act means they are free to choose/act in regards to all their choices and actions. This is a rational assumption.
Which assumption on your part the NT denies.
And which assumption is the meaning of "free" as distinct from "free agent."
By way of example, Dicapario handcuffed to a pipe in Titantic was, by your logic, a “free” person to decide/act. After all, while handcuffed he can make many decisions, whether to squat, stand, yell, bang his handcuffs on the pipe, look out the window, kick his legs, scratch his head, etcetera. Yet, he isn’t free for some other choices, such as whether to leave or stay, when to eat, what to eat, whether to sit at the desk or on the floor, whether to lay down, etcetera. DiCaprio isn’t free as some choices/conduct is determined for him, forced upon him, while handcufffed to the pipe.
Which makes him a "free agent," capable of acting freely, but not capable of choosing to be sinless.
And your logic is to handcuff people to some choices/actions in which the person has no freedom to make a different choice/action and that isn’t to be “free,” regardless if they are “free” to make other choices/action.
However, it is not my logic, it is the teaching of the NT, "He who sins is a slave to sin." (John 8:34; Galatians 3:22). Slaves aren't free. No one can execute a choice to be sinless.
Your reasoning is exactly the reasoning Plantinga derided with his prison analogy.
Because both you and Plantinga are ignoring the context of John 8:34, where Jesus continues,

"Those whom the Son sets free are free indeed."
(John 8:36)
It's about sin. . .and the freedom from sin.
It's about those who sin being slaves. . .and those whom the Son sets free--not those who set themselves free--being free indeed.
It's about not being free. . .but being a slave in regard to sin, and
it's about true freedom from sin being only in the Son.

It's about those apart from the Son not being truly free.

That is the NT teaching on "free will," Plantinga not-with-standing.
It's not complicated.

Those in the Son are free indeed.
Those who are not in the Son are not free from sin.

Man's logic and manufactured human reasoning not-with-standing.

Clare73 said:
God is not responsible for your condemnation, Adam is.
God offers the only remedy for Adam's squandering of your inheritance.
We are born judged, sentenced and condemned by Adam's sin
(Romans 5:18, Romans 5:12-14.
NotreDame said:
Adam’s sin is not imputed onto us or his progeny.
Feel free to exegete Romans 5:12-15
being true to its context which are the following facts,
reconciling them in a consistent manner:

1) sin
"was in the world" (Romans 5:12),
2) sin being transgression of the law (
1 John 3:4), where there is no law there being no guilt of sin charged to anyone (Romans 4:15), there being no law between Adam and Moses, therefore, there being no guilt of sin (transgression) to charge to anyone (Romans 5:13), and
"nevertheless (physical) death reigned from the time of Adam to Moses over those who did not sin" (Romans 5:14),
3) so guilt of what sin was charged to them between Adam and Moses, which caused physical death to reign over them all? (see v.15, 18)

You espouse a view parallel if not identical to Original Sin. Your view and that of Original sin, as you expressed it above, finds no basis in the plain text or the Greek.
Strawman. . .no one claims "original sin" is in the Greek, just as no one claims "Trinity" is in the Greek.
But they do claim the concepts so named are both taught in the Greek.
Theologically, your statement we are judged and condemned as a result of Adam’s sin is very contentious. A basis of the disagreement is “through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned,” Romans 5:12
Your approach is ostensibly to assume whatever version of the Bible/NT you’ve quoted from that the translation of the Greek is correct. This is a dubious assumption since the Koine Greek is the NT was written in is ancient and composed over nearly 2,000 years ago, Paul’s letters included.

The human language is complex, with idioms, metaphors, allegories, synonyms, multiple meanings for words, context and word usage.

The fact is the verses you cite, and the meaning you attribute to them, is not unambiguously inferred from the text and neither is your meaning a must based on the plain text.
A reasonable reading of the plain text passage of 5:12 is death spread to all but not because of Adam, but because all humans have sinned and as a result of their sin, death. Indeed, that meaning is how “so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned,” reasonably reads. Death comes to all mankind because they all sinned.
There is nothing reasonable about it . .it contradicts, "death reigned over those who did not sin." (Romans 5:14)

And Koine Greek is a strawman. . .the scholars who translate the NIV, etc. today are as up-to-date on Koine Greek as is anyone.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Are you sure that this "at birth", Clare73? Wouldn't that be "at conception", according to David the prophet? ("In sin did my mother conceive me...")
Even a one-celled human in the womb is in need of a Savior. We know this, since death has passed upon these one-celled children as well.
Yes, you are absolutely correct.
I was speaking in terms of the common understanding of the beginning of one's life, not in terms of the scientific fact of its beginning in the one-celled zygote.
These vss. cover not only infants and small children but also the intellectually challenged and people in remote places who have never heard the gospel
Romans 4:15
15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Romans 5:13
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.​
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
These vss. cover not only infants and small children but also the intellectually challenged and people in remote places who have never heard the gospel
In the three principles Paul sets forth (Romans 2:1-16) that govern God's judgment of mankind:
1) according to the truth (v.2),
2) according to deeds (vv. 6-11),
3) according to the light one has (vv. 12-15),
would not those above be judged by principle 3)?
Romans 4:15
15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Romans 5:13
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
"Transgression" being high-handed sin (Numbers 15:30)--knowingly and willingly breaking the law, as in the case of Adam, and distinct from
"sin" - simply breaking the law whether knowingly or unknowingly (Numbers 15:22).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
"Transgression" being high-handed sin (Numbers 15:30)--knowingly and willingly breaking the law, as in the case of Adam, and distinct from
"sin" - simply breaking the law whether knowingly or unknowingly (Numbers 15:22).
In the three principles Paul sets forth (Romans 2:1-16) that govern God's judgment of mankind:
1) according to the truth (v.2),
2) according to deeds (vv. 6-11),
3) according to the light one has (vv. 12-15),
would not those above would be judged by principle 3)?
Exactly, Romans 2:12-15. The same writer, Paul, in the same writing, Romans, saying the same thing in a slightly different way.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,565
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That's a lot of work. . .

First of all, the domain here is morality.
We are not (totally) morally "free," we are moral "free agents" capable of executing freely.

It's not about the Oxford Dictionary, it's about Greek and Roman philosophy.

Precisely, in total agreement with Oxford.
And mankind enjoys that freedom in many things, but he cannot choose to be sinless.

And that is precisely the philosophical difference between "free" and "free agent."

Precisely, "free agents" are not free in all things, only the "free" are such.
And the NT denies mankind is "free" in that regard (John 8:34-36).
Which assumption on your part the NT denies.
And which assumption is the meaning of "free" as distinct from "free agent."

Which makes him a "free agent," capable of acting freely, but not capable of choosing to be sinless.

However, it is not my logic, it is the teaching of the NT, "He who sins is a slave to sin." (John 8:34; Galatians 3:22). Slaves aren't free. No one can execute a choice to be sinless.

Because both you and Plantinga are ignoring the context of John 8:34, where Jesus continues,

"Those whom the Son sets free are free indeed."
(John 8:36)
It's about sin. . .and the freedom from sin.
It's about those who sin being slaves. . .and those whom the Son sets free--not those who set themselves free--being free indeed.
It's about not being free. . .but being a slave in regard to sin, and
it's about true freedom from sin being only in the Son.

It's about those apart from the Son not being truly free.

That is the NT teaching on "free will," Plantinga not-with-standing.
It's not complicated.

Those in the Son are free indeed.
Those who are not in the Son are not free from sin.

Man's logic and manufactured human reasoning not-with-standing.



Feel free to exegete Romans 5:12-15
being true to its context which are the following facts,
reconciling them in a consistent manner:

1) sin
"was in the world" (Romans 5:12),
2) sin being transgression of the law (
1 John 3:4), where there is no law there being no guilt of sin charged to anyone (Romans 4:15), there being no law between Adam and Moses, therefore, there being no guilt of sin (transgression) to charge to anyone (Romans 5:13), and
"nevertheless (physical) death reigned from the time of Adam to Moses over those who did not sin" (Romans 5:14),
3) so guilt of what sin was charged to them between Adam and Moses, which caused physical death to reign over them all? (see v.15, 18)


Strawman. . .no one claims "original sin" is in the Greek, just as no one claims "Trinity" is in the Greek.
But they do claim the concepts so named are both taught in the Greek.

There is nothing reasonable about it . .it contradicts, "death reigned over those who did not sin." (Romans 5:14)

And Koine Greek is a strawman. . .the scholars who translate the NIV, etc. today are as up-to-date on Koine Greek as is anyone.


Yes, it is a lot of work, it is called making a rational argument and rebuttal, which, as I’ll show below, involves more than your reasoning of you said so. The “work” is examining the reasoning, its relation to the conclusion, the soundness of the reasoning, the evidence, and allowing them to lead me to a conclusion. Contrasted with your reverse approach of you want to believe X and then attempt to make the evidence fit your belief, read meaning into the Bible inconsistent with the text but compatible with your view, and a dose of tortured logic for your precious view.

And that is precisely the philosophical difference between "free" and "free agent."

You can dispense with your red herring use of labels. I’m not playing your red herring, silly label game.

It is the substance of what you say that is being addressed, regardless of whether you call it “free” Britney, “free” food or “free” refills. It is the substance of the ice cream that is being debated and not how you name the ice cream. It’s the substance of what you say that is logically contradictory to the word “free.”

It's not about the Oxford Dictionary, it's about Greek and Roman philosophy.

You’ve improperly interjected with the “Greek and Roman philosophy,” I posted a correction, and you double down on the same error. Unbelievable. Incorrigible.

Neither Roman or Greek philosophy had espoused, expressed, or articulated the substantive notion of free will and its meaning that myself, Pelagius, or Plantinga have invoked. Indeed, you’ve cited to no evidence to support your statment then, not now, and I’m 99.9% certain you can’t because that evidence doesn’t presently exist.

Your statement doesn’t make a shred of sense when considering Greek and Roman philosophy did not include the idea of free will under discussion here.

Instead, myself, and others, such as Pelagius, have espoused a concept of free will consistent with if not supported by the Bible.

You are making no sense with your repeated use of that anachronistic statement.

Second, the meaning of “free” is an issue, and the Oxford meaning is relevant. Relevant to what? The issue under discussion and the competing and disagreeing claims in relation to the issue.

ISSUE: When can confronted with a choice to sin or not to sin (rephrased as a choice to do some action, behavior, conduct, or say something, that involves either sinning or not sinning) do people choose to sin or choose not to sin.

That’s the issue.

Your conclusion in regards to the issue: For at least one such decision, people are forced to choose to sin, they must choose to sin. After all, they can’t choose to be sinless. So they MUST or are forced to choose sin.

My claim: People aren’t forced to choose sin and must not choose to sin but choose to sin or not to sin on their own volition.

Now, the reason the Oxford meaning is relevant is because A.) I know of no other meaning of “free,” perhaps you do? B) The word “free” logically describes the situation of people and their choices to sin or not to sin.

Of course, the context of the discussion frames the relevance of the meaning of “free.” After all, the issue is whether people have to choose sin or whether they voluntarily choose sin.

To be “free” in this context means people aren’t forced to sin at all. A scenario where they are forced to sin, even once, is a scenario where they aren’t “free” as to be “free” means they aren’t forced or must not do anything in particular or specific.

This context is accentuated by a God who punishes sin, as all will have to give an “account of ourselves” to God. Punishment and an “account” isn’t rationally is neither fair or just where people are forced to sin.

So, use of the word “free” to describe a state of affairs in which people MUST sin, are forced to sin (they can’t choose to be sinless, they lack that ability, is your reasoning) is logically a contradiction.

The word “free” is logically inconsistent, and entirely contradictory to your statement. The situation your statement describes is of people who aren’t free, people who are forced to sin, must choose sin.

Which leads to a tragic comedy when you say:

First of all, the domain here is morality. We are not (totally) morally "free," we are moral "free agents" capable of executing freely.

Contradictory nonsense. The very situation you’ve described of people must, are forced to choose sin, at least once, means they aren’t “free.” The very idea of being “free” means they aren’t forced to do something, they cannot be in a scenario where they MUST DO something. In your scenario, for at least once, they aren’t “freely executing” at all but are forced to “execute” in a sinful manner.

Unless of course you have some other meaning of “free” that myself, Oxford, and many other people have never heard of that renders the logical contradiction as not contradictory.

And espousing and adhering to a logical contradiction is the consequence of refusing to abandon your claims and POV for sound logic, because it is your narrative and heaven forbid if your narrative is wrong, or that you’d have to abandon or adjust your narrative to make sense.

Now, the logical contradiction of your view aside, the Bible doesn’t support anything you’ve said. More on that below:

Precisely, "free agents" are not free in all things, only the "free" are such.
And the NT denies mankind is "free" in that regard (John 8:34-36).

Excuse me for being blunt, but that’s a empty analysis and argument. What is needed, and what you fail to do repeatedly, is offer any textual analysis and argument of the text that establishes the text does say what you allege the text to say.

But it doesn’t take long to read the verses in John and realize the text in fact does not say what you allege the text to say.

Your statement:
Precisely, "free agents" are not free in all things, only the "free" are such.
And the NT denies mankind is "free" in that regard (John 8:34-36)

John 8:34-36 “Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin.35 Now the slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you really will be free. 37”

The words “free agent” are conspicuously absent from the verses but your statement says they are there, somewhere, perhaps as invisible to our eyes as atoms. No words of “free in all things,” no word amounting to a “denial,” no word amounting to “mankind” and no words asserting mankind isn’t “free.”

So, no, the text of the John verses do not say what you allege they say.

Here’s a parallel to your methodology of the verses of John say what you allege they say.

You:”The states, when offering academic scholarships for university and college degrees, cannot discriminate against degrees of pastoral ministries. It says so, right there, in the First Amendment.”

First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The above is your argument in relation to the verses in John. It’s vacuous to say the least. And it sums up your Biblical argument.

The text of the 1st Amendment has no words or wording about “states,” like the verse is devoid of the words “free agents.” The 1st amendment text has no words of “offering, scholarships, discriminate, degrees, or pastoral ministries” just as the text of the verses have no words or wording of “
are not free in all things, only the "free" are such. And the NT denies mankind is "free" in that regard.”

Of course, I’m not suggesting what you allege the verses to say must literally appear in the verses in order for the verses to say what you allege them to say.

However, examining the plain text and your wording conspicuously absent illuminates what you allege the verses to say may not be what the verses are in fact saying.

After all, Jesus is speaking metaphorically with the words “slave” and “free,” not literally. This is augmented by the verses showing the disciples initially understood Jesus literally in regards to “free” and that meaning of “free” taken literally by the disciples wasn’t Jesus’ meaning or use of the word “free” (indeed the verses use two different words for free with for the disciples use of “free” and Jesus’ use of “free” eleutheroó/verb, and eleutheros/adjective; and Jesus’ meaning will be figurative).

So, Jesus corrected his disciples when they said, in a literal meaning of slave and free, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, ‘You will become free’?” Jesus corrects their literal understanding by again answering metaphorically. John 8:34-36.

The use of the metaphors by Jesus doesn’t support what you allege the verses to say. (Precisely, "free agents" are not free in all things, only the "free" are such.
And the NT denies mankind is "free" in that regard). Since Jesus isn’t speaking literally in regards to “free” or “slave” then whether this verse discusses “free” in the same sense as you are is unclear, unknown, and a fault in your argument. Which is to say there’s no showing you and Jesus are saying the same thing in those verses.

To show the verses say what you allege is not only clarity in your meaning of “free” as you provide the meaning (you conviently do not, prohibiting anyone from criticizing your argument because it lacks substance to critique, an argument with no spine) but also examining the meaning of the words in the verses and demonstrating how the meaning of those words express the message and meaning you allege.

Yet, despite an absence of any demonstration of what you allege the verses to say IS what the verses say by means of illuminating the Greek meaning of the words and that meaning incorporating your statment, such a method can show what you allege the verses to say IS NOT what they say.

I did precisely that in my last post, as I provided the meaning of some of the Greek terms, in addition to the structure of the verses, to illuminate a meaning and message of the verses that is not what you allege to be the meaning or message.

Continuing that process, of examining the Greek meaning of the words used, and structure and content of the verses, provide no support for your view.

First the Greek for “commit” means to “practice.” The Greek meaning for the verb form of the word “practice” is “repetition…regular practice…routine or habit…done habitually…”

So, Jesus’ literal comments in Greek mean, pas ho poiōn ho hamartia doulos ho hamartia, and that literally means "everyone who routinely does sin is a slave to sin” or “habitually does sin” or “regularly does sin.”

Nowhere in the meaning or in the verse is Jesus stating they must habitually sin or that the decision to habitually sin and continue to to do so cannot be a free choice(s) they made, they so decided on their own volition.

Jesus says nothing more than this, habitual sin, is to render them a slave. Such a meaning doesn’t indicate, imply, suggest, or infer anyone MUST choose sin or MUST choose to habitually sin as opposed to freely choosing to do so.

Now, the word “slave” in Greek has a meaning of describing a relationship between people, nothing more. The Greek word for slave and its meaning does not speak to whether people have free will to make their choices or whether their choices are determined for them, forced upon them, as it relates to their metaphysical relationship to God, sin, punishment, etcetera. The meaning of the word “slave” merely describes a relationship, nothing more.

The word “slave” has been used in reference to a believers’ relationship to Jesus. The word “slave” is used in reference to sin. The word is used to describe the relationship, of one belonging to Christ and his righteousness, or sin and its, and does not imply, infer, suggest, or explicitly assert there is a lack of Free Will pertaining to the choices and behaviors of people.

The Greek word of “free” by Jesus is used metaphorically and has a metaphorical meaning. First, Jesus’ use of the word “free” wasn’t used in the sense they were literal slaves, or literally lacked freedom. The Greek meaning of eleutheroó here is “set at liberty; liberate from bondage.” Jesus is saying they do not belong to sin, and of course where one is faithfully following Jesus and an adherent to his teachings and the Bible, they then belong to Jesus and his righteousness.

Only by ignoring the text are you permitted to arrive at your interpretation. And this is exactly what you’ve done, as ignoring the meaning of the words is blissful, and permits you to blissfully assert the words mean whatever you want. That is an illogical approach but it is your approach.

Indeed, you do not bother to explore the Greek meaning.

The verses from John offer no support for your view. None.
 
Upvote 0

TedT

Member since Job 38:7
Jan 11, 2021
1,850
334
Vancouver Island
✟85,846.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No man has a free will until his rebirth in Christ. A sinners will is enslaved by and addicted to evil.

Free will cannot be defined by the ability to choose because an evil will may still choose between evils or even a 'good' act done for evil reasons...

A free will is defined by the ability to chose any option in the equation, and since the sinner cannot choose to be righteous and so save himself, his will is NOT free.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,163
1,805
✟794,962.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No man has a free will until his rebirth in Christ. A sinners will is enslaved by and addicted to evil.

Free will cannot be defined by the ability to choose because an evil will may still choose between evils or even a 'good' act done for evil reasons...

A free will is defined by the ability to chose any option in the equation, and since the sinner cannot choose to be righteous and so save himself, his will is NOT free.
Free will is not defined by being able to do any option, just being able to choose a different option then the one he/she chose.
If humans needed free will to fulfill their earthly objective would God have the power and Love to provide this very limited free will to humans?
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,565
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No man has a free will until his rebirth in Christ. A sinners will is enslaved by and addicted to evil.

Free will cannot be defined by the ability to choose because an evil will may still choose between evils or even a 'good' act done for evil reasons...

A free will is defined by the ability to chose any option in the equation, and since the sinner cannot choose to be righteous and so save himself, his will is NOT free.

To the contrary, the “sinner” can and does “choose to be righteous” by choosing a life in Jesus. Jesus’ message to the disciples in John was for them to follow his teachings and in doing so, they would be made righteous through Him and by Him.

“Being addicted” to sin does not mean the person doesn’t freely choose sin. The “addicted” person is still making a choice to remain addicted, to be addicted, to choose sin, and they are the cause of said choices, they choices are made by them, and they aren’t forced to so decide.

There isn’t any Biblical support for your comments.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
4,924
2,884
66
Denver CO
✟200,758.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
To the contrary, the “sinner” can and does “choose to be righteous” by choosing a life in Jesus. Jesus’ message to the disciples in John was for them to follow his teachings and in doing so, they would be made righteous through Him and by Him.

“Being addicted” to sin does not mean the person doesn’t freely choose sin. The “addicted” person is still making a choice to remain addicted, to be addicted, to choose sin, and they are the cause of said choices, they choices are made by them, and they aren’t forced to so decide.

There isn’t any Biblical support for your comments.
I think the poster is saying the same thing you are. We can't be righteous apart from Christ, the Word of God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TedT
Upvote 0