Free Will challenge

Don Maurer

^Oh well^
Jun 5, 2013
424
136
Pa, USA, Earth, solar system, milky way, universe.
✟53,230.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Reference to John 6:44
Good hermeneutics takes the context when interpreting which in this case starts with the whole sentence. "Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day." It presents coming to Jesus as conditional on something that God does first. It does not say people do not use their conscience to repent or that people have lost the ability to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action.
Your response does not speak to the issue of the text at all. The point is that one cannot come to Jesus unless God first draws him. The text affirms exactly what you deny. You deny that the text affirms that people lost ability. The text in John 6:44 says "No one can." The word "can" speaks of ability.

You speak of the context... I apologize for being blunt, but your comment shows no understanding of the context. You say that the context is "Stop grumbling..." That is not at all the point of the context. It is a basic rule of hermeneutics that one should observe repeated language in a context. The repeated language is about the word come.
Vs 35 "I am the bread of life, he who comes to me
Vs 37 "All that the Fathers gives to me will come to me
Vs 39 (Slight change in term) Father has given to me.

Of course verse 44 is followed by verse 45 which has the same phrase.
Vs 45 "learned of the Father, comes to me."

Verse 44 is repeated in verse 65.

Who can come to Christ? The text is clear... "No one" (the first two words). We come because the Father draws, not of our own ability. That is the whole point of verse 44.

Prior to the fall, Adam was created in the image of God. After the fall he was still in the image of God as were all his offspring after him. Prior to the fall humans were dichotomist (physical and non-physical) beings and after the fall all humans are still dichotomist beings. Since the Bible says this, then sin does not change what people are.
Is this any different from Pelagianism?

After Adam and Eve sinned, they became subject to death and in bondage to sin. Bondage to something does not equal the loss of the ability to recognize the bondage and choose the release from bondage when it is offered by another.
To include Eve would not be biblically accurate at all. The whole issue concerns only Adam. This is why Romans 5 talks about Adam. This is why 1 Corinthians 15 talks only about Adam. The scripture (Eph 2:3) says that we are "by nature children of wrath." Our bondage is a part of our nature. We can no more change our nature that a Leopard can change its spots (Jeremiah 13:23). Your view also avoids the issue of human nature being "dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph 2:1; Romans 6 and many more). You make the nature of man to be merely wounded or a little sick, but able to be healed. We do not need just a little mending, but we need a transformation.

Children now have the handicap of growing up in a world tainted by sin and will inevitably sin themselves just like someone who drives for a few years will inevitably break a road rule even if they never intentionally do so.
This is soooo unscriptural. The word is "dead" not tainted. You think men become sinners when they sin. That is not the scriptural teaching. Men sin because they are sinners by nature. David admitted to being "brought forth in iniquity." (Psa 51:5)

To sin is to rebel against God. Following the way of the world and being in sin is referred to as being dead in transgressions and sins. Someone who sins is by nature under the wrath of God.[/QUOTE]
Well, at least you admit we are dead in sin, but the rest is far to weak. We rebel against God because it is our nature. We sin, because it is our nature. Only regeneration can change that. We do not regenerate ourselves, that would be a foolish idea. God gives us faith as a gift (Phil 1:29) and that gift is the act of changing the nature of the elect.

You fail to know the grace of God fully. You see man as holier then what he really is, and God as less graceful that what God is.
 
Upvote 0

Paul.

I think therefore I post
Supporter
Oct 28, 2008
324
35
Australia
✟148,841.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Divorced
Then now we need to back up. Prior to this, Paul says:


For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.”
Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
— 1 Corinthians 1:18-31

Paul is saying that to those not in Christ the cross is foolish. In 2:14, he’s just summarizing what he’s been saying from the start.
Even here in the text is no reference to an inability to believe. In fact the opposite is found.
NASB 1 Cor 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.​
Here we find that God saved those who believed the message preached even though it is considered foolishness by the world’s wisdom. There is no limitation placed on those who would believe the message, and this lines up with 1 Cor 2:14.
The Corinthians were arguing about how they came to Christ, whether through Paul, Apollos, etc. Paul is saying that it was through none of them, but through Christ alone.
Yes, Paul does show the contrast between those outside of Christ being divided by Jew and Gentile and is showing that in Christ there is no such division. We have different understanding of what through Christ alone means as I will expand upon further down.
They never would have even believed but through Christ since the natural man finds the cross to be foolish.
This scripture passage like 1 Cor 2:14 does not say that. The fact that it says some do believe contradicts this. Inability must be read onto the text because the text does not say it.
So when he says “But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus,” he means that it totally Christ’s doing.
It is through Christ alone because he died on the cross and paid the price for our sin. We do nothing to earn or merit salvation. God is the sole agent that chooses to save us. His choosing to save us based on the conditions that he lays out is all His doing. The choice of the father of The Prodigal Son was 100% his when he chose to restore his son. The son’s actions did not earn or merit restoration. The son still had to choose to come home and that was 100% his choice. There are two separate choices. The choice of the son does not dimmish the fact that it was 100% the fathers doing to restore the son. In the same way, the ability to refrain or not refrain form a given moral action does not negate the fact that when someone is saved by God it is still all God’s doing.
Paul even starts chapter 2 by showing that it certainly wasn’t his message that did it because he wasn’t really great at speaking. But it was the power of the gospel that changed the hearts.
No, Paul says he did not proclaim the gospel via "lofty speech or wisdom" which is referring to the delivery of the message. the message is the gospel. You cannot separate the gospel from the message because if you took out the gospel, there would be no message left.
You are right in saying that it was the power of gospel that changed the hearts. It was not some supernatural change of ontological nature prior to the gospel that changed the hearts. The gospel in and of itself is the grace of God to those that are perishing.
 
Upvote 0

Paul.

I think therefore I post
Supporter
Oct 28, 2008
324
35
Australia
✟148,841.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Divorced
I’m not sure that I need to. It’s not about the outward actions that men are ultimately judged. Jesus was clear about this in the sermon on the mount. It’s what’s inward that we are judged. So a man may live what appears to be a moral life, but if it’s not for the glory of God, he’s in sin. So being in Adam, or being a slave to sin, doesn’t mean that every action is evil. It means that every action is apart from any notion of pleasing God, so that makes it sinful regardless of how altruistic it may appear.
You asserted that Romans 8 shows that people do not have the ability to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action. You do need to either show it or acknowledge that you will not be able to show it at this point in time.
 
Upvote 0

Paul.

I think therefore I post
Supporter
Oct 28, 2008
324
35
Australia
✟148,841.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Divorced
NT usage indicates otherwise.

Galatians 2:15 - Jews by birth, origin.

Romans 2:27 - Gentles (uncircumcised) by birth, origin.
Only if you assume that the word is used in the same way every time it is mentioned in the Bible. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon indicates the passages you mention as using the word differently. You cannot reasonably argue the context of the passages in one book dictate the context in another. Just like in English, context determines the meaning, and the context of each usage must be considered.

"He who sins is a slave to sin." (John 8:34)
Slave to sin does not equal unable to refrain from any sin. If it did then people would be as depraved as they could be, but they are not.

Could Adam choose to be sinless from then on? Can you ?
Does not being sinless equal unable to refrain from even one sin?

Your inability to show that he could not.
If I do not prove the flying spaghetti monster is false, does that prove it is true? No. When you make a claim, the burden of proof lies at your door. If I ask you to substantiate it, you have not proven it because I did not prove the opposite.

Before the fall, Adam had the moral power to be sinless. Do you? So then fallen man has the moral power to be sinless. . .he has the moral power to be righteous to salvation under the law. Someone forgot to tell Paul, for he says, "all who rely on the law are under a curse" (Galatians 3:10) because no one can be sinless according to it, no one can keep it to righteousness.
This is a false dilemma argument. These are not the only two options and when you find someone who is arguing for the option you refuted, provide this refutation to them.

It's all moot anyway. . .we are born guilty of Adam's sin (Romans 5:12-14)and condemned (Romans 5:18)
Romans 5 talks about Adam in relation to how his sinful action provided consequences that effected the world and those who are in it.

NASB Rm 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned-

Here Paul explains that “sin entered the world.” It does not say, sin entered people or every person. Then it says, “and death through sin.” Death enters the world because of sin being in the world. Death spreads to everyone because everyone sins. “Sinned” is used in the past simple tense of the verb, sin therefore referring to the act of having committing sin and not the state of being a sinner. It did not say; because everyone has the guilt of Adam’s sin or that everyone was born a sinner. Grammatically, you cannot separate the spread of sin from the active sinning due to the word “because” being a subordinating conjunction making the “all sinned” a dependent clause. This means people are not guilty of Adam’s sin but from their own.

NASB Rm 5:18 So then, as through one offense the result was condemnation to all mankind, so also through one act of righteousness the result was justification of life to all mankind.

In this verse the offense and the act of righteousness is juxtaposed so that if you interpret the condemnation to apply to all then the justification applies to all. Since not all are justified unless you believe universalism of salvation the interpretation is wrong. The use of the phrase “the result was” is what shows that the condemnation and justification is not a direct application but a cause-and-effect occurrence. The cause and effect is to all and effects all who meet the cause whether it is on the side of condemnation or justification. This does not show guilt or condemnation for Adam’s sin.

, by nature (birth) objects of wrath (Ephesians 2:3).
As per Thayer’s Greek lexicon, nature in this verse is not referring to nature from birth.

However, Romans 3:9-10, Galatians 3:10 are.
If you think that these scriptures show mankind does not have free will, quote them and point out which words actually state this.

Not analogous. . .you never had the power to feed all the children in the world, so you didn't lose anything.

However, Adam did indeed lose for you the ability to be sinless.
You have not interpreted what I said correctly. I stated that because I cannot do A, this is not proof that I cannot do B.

For example, the fact that I cannot drive a car on two wheels is not proof I cannot drive a car.

Another example, the fact that I cannot feed all the starving children in the world is not proof I cannot feed one starving child.

Are you following so far?


"No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." (John 6:65)

"All that the Father gives to me will come to me." (John 6:37)

"I shall lose none of all that he given me." (John 6:39)
For example, based on the following statement, "No one can enter the theatre unless they have a ticket" who can enter the theatre? The answer is … people who have a ticket.

The sentence contains a main clause (can), a conjunction (unless) and a subordinate clause (have). You cannot ignore the subordinate clause and interpret the sentence correctly, therefore the correct answer to the question "Who can enter the theatre?" cannot be "No one." The rules of grammar dictate this.

John 6:44 in the ESV, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV and NLT to name a few, all structure the sentence in the same way as the theatre sentence example. There is a main clause (can), a conjunction (unless) and a subordinate clause (draws [KJV says draw but that changes nothing.]) Since no-one would even jokingly argue that the translators did not use correct grammar when forming English sentences, correct grammar will dictate comprehension (which is essentially what grammar it is for.)

NASB Jn 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

I assume the context of Jesus responding to Israelites in the present tense is not in dispute (context comes from v43 and earlier) so when look at Jn 6:44 and ask, “Who is the verse saying can come to Jesus?” The only grammatically correct answer is … those people who the Father draws.

Since the sentences are all in present tense when referring to those who come, this is only referring to people who were in existence at the time the discourse was occurring. To read yourself into the text would be narcigesis instead of exegesis.

This gives rise to the question, "Who was the Father drawing to Jesus when He was incarnate performing His earthly ministry?" (Present tense grammar from v44 and earlier is enough to provide this context) The very next verse provides the answer.

NASB Jn 6:45b Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.

If the Father needed to draw people in v44 for them to come to Jesus and v45 says that everyone who previously heard and learnt from the Father comes to Jesus, the conclusion must be; the Father was drawing everyone who was already hearing and learning from the Father; to Jesus. The past tense of the people’s relationship with the Father is in the words “has heard” and “learned.” These are the people who are being referred to when the phase “comes to me” is used.

John 6 is therefore not showing an inability of people to respond to the gospel when it is provided to them.



You also haven't read Romans 9:18-23.
Assuming someone has not read a part of the Bible rather than assuming they disagree with your interpretation of that part of the Bible seems quite presumptuous. Provided your interpretive reasoning rather than an ad hominem response.

The one who fabricates words accuses others of fabrication.
If you have never heard of a word before, try doing a Google search to see if it exists. That way you will not look ignorant when accusing someone of fabricating words.

Do not all the born again follow him?

"All" is not just his immediate disciples.
The grammar is in the present tense therefore it is not referring all of Jesus disciples throughout time. If grammar is not followed, then the context is lost, and the interpretation is incorrect.

It's proven by the words of Jesus (John 8:34), and your inability to be completely sinless.
This is the same argument repeated stating that the inability to refrain from all sins equals the inability to refrain from one sin.
 
Upvote 0

Paul.

I think therefore I post
Supporter
Oct 28, 2008
324
35
Australia
✟148,841.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Divorced
AB'SOLUTE, adjective [Latin absolutus. See Absolve.]

1. Literally, in a general sense, free, independent of anything extraneous. Hence,

2. Complete in itself; positive; as an absolute declaration.

3. Unconditional, as an absolute promise.

4. Existing independent of any other cause, as God is absolute

5. Unlimited by extraneous power or control, as an absolute government or prince.

6. Not relative, as absolute space.

PREDESTINA'TION, noun The act of decreeing or foreordaining events; the decree of God by which he hath, from eternity, unchangeably appointed or determined whatever comes to pass. It is used particularly in theology to denote the preordination of men to everlasting happiness or misery.

Predestination is a part of the unchangeable plan of the divine government; or in other words, the unchangeable purpose of an unchangeable God.

Websters Dictionary 1828 - American Dictionary of the English Language
Devine meticulous determinism by any other name is still exhaustive theistic determinism. You seem to be providing a distinction without a difference. This is still just a form of hard determinism.

See definition of the words above.
I have learnt that a more direct answer is needed. Do you believe God could have created a universe where Adam and Eve had a choice to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action?

If you think that the only options KJVO or the eclectic text, you have not looked far enough to find the various robust viewpoints.

^_^
Even if did think that, it does not change the fact that you used the KJV to try and provide an interpretation that is not held up by the modern translations.
 
Upvote 0

Paul.

I think therefore I post
Supporter
Oct 28, 2008
324
35
Australia
✟148,841.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Divorced
Based on your responses, it appears to me you don't really want to examine the scripture carefully. IMO you seem to just want to argue about it, so I think we should part ways at this point.
Not agreeing with your interpretation of the scriptures does not equal being unwilling to examining them carefully. Discussing scripture with those who interpret it differently, should cause you to spend more time it in them, like it does for me. This is a debate forum as per the title, so you should not be surprised that someone is not accepting your view as the correct one and is providing push back.
 
Upvote 0

Paul.

I think therefore I post
Supporter
Oct 28, 2008
324
35
Australia
✟148,841.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Divorced
Reference to John 6:44


Your response does not speak to the issue of the text at all. The point is that one cannot come to Jesus unless God first draws him. The text affirms exactly what you deny. You deny that the text affirms that people lost ability. The text in John 6:44 says "No one can." The word "can" speaks of ability.



You speak of the context... I apologize for being blunt, but your comment shows no understanding of the context. You say that the context is "Stop grumbling..." That is not at all the point of the context. It is a basic rule of hermeneutics that one should observe repeated language in a context. The repeated language is about the word come.

Vs 35 "I am the bread of life, he who comes to me

Vs 37 "All that the Fathers gives to me will come to me

Vs 39 (Slight change in term) Father has given to me.


Of course verse 44 is followed by verse 45 which has the same phrase.

Vs 45 "learned of the Father, comes to me."



Verse 44 is repeated in verse 65.



Who can come to Christ? The text is clear... "No one" (the first two words). We come because the Father draws, not of our own ability. That is the whole point of verse 44.

I am unable to agree with you because this would not be a pass on an English grammar test.

For example, based on the following statement, "No one can enter the theatre unless they have a ticket" who can enter the theatre? The answer is … people who have a ticket.

The sentence contains a main clause (can), a conjunction (unless) and a subordinate clause (have). You cannot ignore the subordinate clause and interpret the sentence correctly, therefore the correct answer to the question "Who can enter the theatre?" cannot be "No one." The rules of grammar dictate this.

John 6:44 in the ESV, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV and NLT to name a few, all structure the sentence in the same way as the theatre sentence example. There is a main clause (can), a conjunction (unless) and a subordinate clause (draws [KJV says draw but that changes nothing.]) Since no-one would even jokingly argue that the translators did not use correct grammar when forming English sentences, correct grammar will dictate comprehension (which is essentially what grammar it is for.)

NASB Jn 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

I assume the context of Jesus responding to Israelites in the present tense is not in dispute (context comes from v43 and earlier) so when look at Jn 6:44 and ask, “Who is the verse saying can come to Jesus?” The only grammatically correct answer is … those people who the Father draws.

Since the sentences are all in present tense when referring to those who come, this is only referring to people who were in existence at the time the discourse was occurring. To read yourself into the text would be narcigesis instead of exegesis.

This gives rise to the question, "Who was the Father drawing to Jesus when He was incarnate performing His earthly ministry?" (Present tense grammar from v44 and earlier is enough to provide this context) The very next verse provides the answer.

NASB Jn 6:45b Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.

If the Father needed to draw people in v44 for them to come to Jesus and v45 says that everyone who previously heard and learnt from the Father comes to Jesus, the conclusion must be; the Father was drawing everyone who was already hearing and learning from the Father; to Jesus. The past tense of the people’s relationship with the Father is in the words “has heard” and “learned.” These are the people who are being referred to when the phase “comes to me” is used.

On a side note, verse 39 is not a slight change of term. The word “given” in verse 39 is used in the same way as the word “gives” in verse 37, it is not a synonym for the word “comes.”


Your interpretation of the verse is Jesus saying,

No one has the ability from birth to respond positively to me or the gospel unless the Father who sent me supernaturally regenerates their ontological nature and irresistible draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

Do you find the re-wording to be theologically correct?

Is this any different from Pelagianism?

This is the Bogeyman label argumentation that allows the adherent to avoid addressing the substance of the argument by labelling (incorrectly as noted below) the person.

If you go to the CARM.org website run by Matt Slick, a well-known Calvinist, you will find four conditions in the definition of Pelagianism. Since the content only agreed with one point, this is the same as non-Christians saying Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians because they believe in the existence of God. This over generalization ignores the fact that they do not believe the Trinity among other things. Agreement on one point does not equal agreement on all points. This sort of argumentation is either born of a lack of understanding or intellectual dishonesty. I assume you made the statement out of not enough knowledge of the facts.


To include Eve would not be biblically accurate at all. The whole issue concerns only Adam.
No, when we look at Genesis 3 we see that Adam sinned and Eve sinned. Both sinned and both received a punishment for their own actions. Eve was not punished for Adam’s sin, she was punished for her own act of sin. The consequences of the punishment each received is still experienced by people today. For example, pain in childbirth and thorns growing in the ground. Their choices, like our Grandparents choices, have consequences in the lives of future generations. The consequences do not show that the nature of Adam or Eve changed in respect to their ability to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action.

This is why Romans 5 talks about Adam.
Romans 5 talks about Adam in relation to how his sinful action provided consequences that effected the world and those who are in it.

NASB Rm 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned-

Here Paul explains that “sin entered the world.” It does not say, sin entered people or every person. Then it says, “and death through sin.” Death enters the world because of sin being in the world. Death spreads to everyone because everyone sins. “Sinned” is used in the past simple tense of the verb, sin therefore referring to the act of having committing sin and not the state of being a sinner. It did not say; because everyone has the guilt of Adam’s sin or that everyone was born a sinner. Grammatically, you cannot separate the spread of sin from the active sinning due to the word “because” being a subordinating conjunction making the “all sinned” a dependent clause.

The result of Adam committing sin is that his offspring are now in world containing both sin and death.

NASB Rm 5:13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not counted against anyone when there is no law.

Here we see God’s mercy in not counting a person’s sin against them prior to the knowledge to the Law.

NASB Rm 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the violation committed by Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Death entered the world because of Adam’s sin and death effects those in the world. People who had not committed sin like Adam did, are still in a world which has death in it. They will experience death whether they commit a sin or not. This is the result of a change of environment not a change of nature.

The chapter then goes on to contrast how Adam’s actions opened the door to sin and death, while Jesus actions opened the door to life eternal. None of this supports the doctrine of inherited sin (as Wayne Grudem calls it.) We have inherited a world that ensures every person will become a sinner before they are 6 years old (although I expect that every two-year-old has already sinned by disobeying their parents and become a sinner.)

This is why 1 Corinthians 15 talks only about Adam.
Adam is spoken of in 1 Cor 15 because his sin resulted in death entering the world. It does not speak about him because his sin changed humanity’s nature. The only thing mentioned is death.

The scripture (Eph 2:3) says that we are "by nature children of wrath." Our bondage is a part of our nature.
In the context of this passage Paul is telling Christians about their former ways as unbelievers. No one disputes that the nature of a sinner is to sin like the nature of an alcoholic is to get drunk. This in no way shows a condition from birth. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon also defines this use of nature as indicating by long habit and references Eph 2:3 which I provided at the start of post #53.

We can no more change our nature that a Leopard can change its spots (Jeremiah 13:23).
If your nature has been changed by your sin then you need God to change you. Interesting to note, in the rest of the verse you did not quote it says this applies to those who "are accustomed to evil" which is referencing habitual behaviour. This points away from a nature from birth.

Your view also avoids the issue of human nature being "dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph 2:1; Romans 6 and many more).
As per you comment later in your post, you acknowledge I do think sinners are dead in sin. Verses that show people are dead in sin do not equal verses showing people are born dead in sin. Bible verses showing a person is born dead in sin are required to justify your interpretation.

You make the nature of man to be merely wounded or a little sick, but able to be healed. We do not need just a little mending, but we need a transformation.
Yes, as sinners' people do need to be transformed from death to life but there is no Bible verse that shows sinners are incapable of accepting to the gospel.

This is soooo unscriptural. The word is "dead" not tainted.
What scripture do you supply to show the world is dead?

You think men become sinners when they sin. That is not the scriptural teaching. Men sin because they are sinners by nature. David admitted to being "brought forth in iniquity." (Psa 51:5)
Context is a very important part hermeneutics and the Psalms use figurative language, including this one. Verse 3 states "my sin is ever before me" which is expressing how much David is thinking about his transgression. Verse 7 says “Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;” which is referring to the purification from transgressions as hyssop was used in the Passover and other sacrifices. If a literal interpretation is applied to verse 3 then David is referring to the actions of his mother and circumstances of his conception. To interpret verse 5 as referring to people being born sinners requires a non-literal interpretation. If the correct interpretation is not literal, then there are more than one possibility including David lamenting his actions to the point where he uses hyperbole to show how sinful he sees himself regarding his actions. Even though this scripture does not contradict the doctrine of a sinful nature from birth, it does not support it either.

To sin is to rebel against God. Following the way of the world and being in sin is referred to as being dead in transgressions and sins. Someone who sins is by nature under the wrath of God.
No disagreement here

Well, at least you admit we are dead in sin, but the rest is far to weak. We rebel against God because it is our nature. We sin, because it is our nature. Only regeneration can change that.
The difference in our belief is when and how people have a nature of sin.

You fail to know the grace of God fully. You see man as holier then what he really is, and God as less graceful that what God is.
Actually that opposite is true.

When is man more blameworthy, when he is not a sinner and chooses to sin or when he is born a sinner already and could not do anything else because of his nature? Man choosing to sin, carries the greater fault.

When is God more gracious, when He gives grace to those who rebel because of their nature dictates they must or when He gives grace to those who chose to rebel? He is more gracious when he shows grace to those who choose rebellion.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,939
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,674.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Only if you assume that the word is used in the same way every time it is mentioned in the Bible. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon indicates the passages you mention as using the word differently.
The issue is the usage of phusis (nature) and phusikos (natural).
That which is natural is by nature. Cats naturally meow and dogs naturally bark, by nature.
They are born that way, you are born with your nature,

Jews by nature means Jews by birth because you are born with your nature.
Gentiles uncircumcised by nature means Gentiles uncircumcised at birth, because you are born with your nature.

If your lexicon does not also show these meanings, then you are using an inadequate lexicon.
You cannot reasonably argue the context of the passages in one book dictate the context in another. Just like in English, context determines the meaning, and the context of each usage must be considered.
The meaning is the same--by nature = from birth.
Other meanings ascribed to the words have different usages.
Slave to sin does not equal unable to refrain from any sin.
Slaves to sin equals unable to refrain from all and every sin, as Adam was able to do, when he chose to sin. It does not mean unable to refrain from any sin at all.
If it did then people would be as depraved as they could be, but they are not.
Does not being sinless equal unable to refrain from even one sin?
If I do not prove the flying spaghetti monster is false, does that prove it is true? No. When you make a claim, the burden of proof lies at your door. If I ask you to substantiate it, you have not proven it because I did not prove the opposite.
This is a false dilemma argument. These are not the only two options and when you find someone who is arguing for the option you refuted, provide this refutation to them.
There are only two options--sinless, and not sinless.

What is the third?
Romans 5 talks about Adam in relation to how his sinful action provided consequences that effected the world and those who are in it.
Adam's sinful action resulted in condemnation to all men (Romans 5:18).
Condemnation is eternal death.
NASB Rm 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned-
Here Paul explains that “sin entered the world.” It does not say, sin entered people or every person. Then it says, “and death through sin.” Death enters the world because of sin being in the world. Death spreads to everyone because everyone sins. “Sinned” is used in the past simple tense of the verb, sin therefore referring to the act of having committing sin and not the state of being a sinner. It did not say; because everyone has the guilt of Adam’s sin or that everyone was born a sinner. Grammatically, you cannot separate the spread of sin from the active sinning due to the word “because” being a subordinating conjunction making the “all sinned” a dependent clause. This means people are not guilty of Adam’s sin but from their own.
You completely misunderstand what Paul is stating in Romans 5:12-14; i.e.,
The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).
Sin is transgression of the law. Where there is no law, there is no transgression, no sin
(Romans 5:13).

But there was no law between Adam and Moses, and yet all died (Romans 5:14).
If sin is transgression of the law, and there was no law, then what sin caused all to die?

The sin in the world (Romans 5:12) that caused all to die was the sin of Adam, imputed/accounted to all men, and bringing all men under condemnation (Romans 5:18).
NASB Rm 5:18 So then, as through one offense the result was condemnation to all mankind, so also through one act of righteousness the result was justification of life to all mankind.
In this verse the offense and the act of righteousness is juxtaposed so that if you interpret the condemnation to apply to all then the justification applies to all
Paul draws two contrasting parallels of imputation, the condemnation of men by the disobedience of Adam vs. the righteousness of men by the obedience of Jesus Christ (Romans 5:18-19).
Since not all are justified unless you believe universalism of salvation the interpretation is wrong. The use of the phrase “the result was” is what shows that the condemnation and justification is not a direct application but a cause-and-effect occurrence. The cause and effect is to all and effects all who meet the cause whether it is on the side of condemnation or justification.
False, as well as irrelevant, construct.

The result of Adam's one sin was condemnation for all men (Romans 5:18-19).
Eph 2:3 does not show guilt or condemnation for Adam’s sin.
Ephesians 2:3, "all of us. . .were by nature, objects of wrath" is the same point as
Romans 5:18, "the result of one sin was condemnation for all men."

The condemnation of Romans 5:18 is to God's wrath of Romans 5:9,
to which Ephesians 2:3 is referring.
The meaning of phusis (nature) in Ephesians 2:3 is "by birth," just as we are condemned by/at birth in Romans 5:18.
If you think that these scriptures show mankind does not have free will, quote them and point out which words actually state this.
Imputation is not about free will, just as your nature at birth is not about free will, or a cat's meow and a dog's bark are not about free will.

Nowhere does the NT present mankind as not having free will.
Free will is the ability to choose what one perfers and likes, without external constraint.
Nowhere is it presented that anyone is forced to receive the gospel, or to believe.

Free will is not the issue in the NT. The issue is the disposition--one's preferences, likes.
The disposition governs the will, one chooses according to one's preference, likes.
God works in the disposition, changing one's preference, likes, and the will then freely and willingly chooses what it prefers, likes.
God uses the will to bring men to himself, he does not violate the will, forcing one against one's preferences.
You have not interpreted what I said correctly. I stated that because I cannot do A, this is not proof that I cannot do B.
For example, the fact that I cannot drive a car on two wheels is not proof I cannot drive a car.

Another example, the fact that I cannot feed all the starving children in the world is not proof I cannot feed one starving child.
Actually, I did interpret what you stated correctly. It is you that stated it incorrectly. You challanged Adam's ability to be sinless which he lost, in terms of an analagous loss by you of something you never possessed in the first place.

Could you ever drive a car on two wheels? If not, you've lost nothing.
Could you ever feed all the starving childfren in the world? If not, you've lost nothing.

Adam could be sinless, and he lost it, and we inherit the loss of that ability from him.
Adam lost for us something we could have had.
You lost nothing.
Are you following so far?
For example, based on the following statement, "No one can enter the theatre unless they have a ticket" who can enter the theatre? The answer is … people who have a ticket.

The sentence contains a main clause (can), a conjunction (unless) and a subordinate clause (have). You cannot ignore the subordinate clause and interpret the sentence correctly, therefore the correct answer to the question "Who can enter the theatre?" cannot be "No one." The rules of grammar dictate this.

John 6:44 in the ESV, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV and NLT to name a few, all structure the sentence in the same way as the theatre sentence example. There is a main clause (can), a conjunction (unless) and a subordinate clause (draws [KJV says draw but that changes nothing.]) Since no-one would even jokingly argue that the translators did not use correct grammar when forming English sentences, correct grammar will dictate comprehension (which is essentially what grammar it is for.)

NASB Jn 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

I assume the context of Jesus responding to Israelites in the present tense is not in dispute (context comes from v43 and earlier) so when look at Jn 6:44 and ask, “Who is the verse saying can come to Jesus?” The only grammatically correct answer is … those people who the Father draws.
Since the sentences are all in present tense when referring to those who come, this is only referring to people who were in existence at the time the discourse was occurring.
To read yourself into the text would be narcigesis instead of exegesis.
A phony "definition" looking for an application. . .

If you think Jesus' teaching to the crowds was meant ony for them, and not for all who would believe in him, you don't understand the NT.
This gives rise to the question, "Who was the Father drawing to Jesus when He was incarnate performing His earthly ministry?" (Present tense grammar from v44 and earlier is enough to provide this context) The very next verse provides the answer.
NASB Jn 6:45b Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.
No one learns from God unless he is born again of the Holy Spirit, for without the Holy Spirit, no one can even see the kngdom of God (John 3:3, John 3:5).
"For the man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for he cannot understand them, they are foolishness to him" (1 Corinthians 2:14), and he wants no part of it. You can't run fast enough to catch him and hang it on him.

"No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." (John 6:65)
If the Father needed to draw people in v44 for them to come to Jesus and v45 says that everyone who previously heard and learnt from the Father comes to Jesus, the conclusion must be; the Father was drawing everyone who was already hearing and learning from the Father; to Jesus. The past tense of the people’s relationship with the Father is in the words “has heard” and “learned.” These are the people who are being referred to when the phase “comes to me” is used.
John 6 is therefore not showing an inability of people to respond to the gospel when it is provided to them.
Assuming someone has not read a part of the Bible rather than assuming they disagree with your interpretation of that part of the Bible seems quite presumptuous. Provided your interpretive reasoning rather than an ad hominem response.

If you have never heard of a word before, try doing a Google search to see if it exists. That way you will not look ignorant when accusing someone of fabricating words.
The grammar is in the present tense therefore it is not referring all of Jesus disciples throughout time. If grammar is not followed, then the context is lost, and the interpretation is incorrect.
One doesn't understand Scripture correctly unless one understands it in light of the whole counsel of God.
This is the same argument repeated stating that the inability to refrain from all sins equals the inability to refrain from one sin.
No such argument has been made by me, nor have I ever seen anyone else make such argument.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Don Maurer

^Oh well^
Jun 5, 2013
424
136
Pa, USA, Earth, solar system, milky way, universe.
✟53,230.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I am unable to agree with you because this would not be a pass on an English grammar test.

For example, based on the following statement, "No one can enter the theatre unless they have a ticket" who can enter the theatre? The answer is … people who have a ticket.

The sentence contains a main clause (can), a conjunction (unless) and a subordinate clause (have). You cannot ignore the subordinate clause and interpret the sentence correctly, therefore the correct answer to the question "Who can enter the theatre?" cannot be "No one." The rules of grammar dictate this.

John 6:44 in the ESV, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV and NLT to name a few, all structure the sentence in the same way as the theatre sentence example. There is a main clause (can), a conjunction (unless) and a subordinate clause (draws [KJV says draw but that changes nothing.]) Since no-one would even jokingly argue that the translators did not use correct grammar when forming English sentences, correct grammar will dictate comprehension (which is essentially what grammar it is for.)

Paul, this is not an english grammar test. It is Greek grammar. The clause you refer to is called an exceptive clause (ean mh). You are weakening the word dunamai (can) and then reading pelagianism into the text. (I know down below you call the word pelagianism a boogie man, but I do think it applies to you due to your misunderstanding of "original sin").

The exceptive clause does not weaken the force of the word dunamai (can). I am giving you basic rules of grammar also... : ).

NASB Jn 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

I assume the context of Jesus responding to Israelites in the present tense is not in dispute (context comes from v43 and earlier) so when look at Jn 6:44 and ask, “Who is the verse saying can come to Jesus?” The only grammatically correct answer is … those people who the Father draws.

The idea that coming to Jesus is an act of grace on the part of God I would heartily agree with.
Since the sentences are all in present tense when referring to those who come, this is only referring to people who were in existence at the time the discourse was occurring. To read yourself into the text would be narcigesis instead of exegesis.
This is yet another grammatical error. The greek present tense is about the concept of continuity, but necessarily about the here and now.

This gives rise to the question, "Who was the Father drawing to Jesus when He was incarnate performing His earthly ministry?" (Present tense grammar from v44 and earlier is enough to provide this context) The very next verse provides the answer.

NASB Jn 6:45b Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.

If the Father needed to draw people in v44 for them to come to Jesus and v45 says that everyone who previously heard and learnt from the Father comes to Jesus, the conclusion must be; the Father was drawing everyone who was already hearing and learning from the Father; to Jesus. The past tense of the people’s relationship with the Father is in the words “has heard” and “learned.” These are the people who are being referred to when the phase “comes to me” is used.
The is a parallel between verse 44 and 45 is that verse 45 is the OT support for what Jesus says in verse 44. The group of people in verse 44 that are "drawn to the Father" and the same group of people that are "taught of God." There is no dispute at this point. Where the problem comes is that you do not grasp that the phrase in verse 44, "and I myself will raise him up on the last day" limits the extent to only those saved. This of course is grammatically absolutely necessary to understand the sentence. There are not two separate people that are called "him" in verse 44... "draws him" and "raise him up on the last day." The two pronouns are identical (auton) in number and case.

Of course this is another point you seem to fail to grasp about the passage. The phrase "and I will raise him up on the last day" is used 3 times in the context. The phrase is used in both 39 and 40. In verse 40 it is linked with eternal life. Out of all who are drawn, how many do you think come to eternal life in verse 44... some? many? all? All who are drawn come to eternal life. That is the point of verse 37. This is not universalism. Not all are drawn. Verse 36 makes that clear. In verse 36 there are some who do not believe. Then in verse 37, the ones given to Christ by the Father will come. Not all are given by the Father to Christ. Of those given by the Father, Christ will loose none of them.

On a side note, verse 39 is not a slight change of term. The word “given” in verse 39 is used in the same way as the word “gives” in verse 37, it is not a synonym for the word “comes.”
Actually it is the same identical term. The difference between "o didwsin" in verse 37 and "o didwken" in verse 39 is that the term in verse 39 is in the perfect tense. So then, while it is not a synonym, it is even better, it is the same identical term.


Your interpretation of the verse is Jesus saying,

No one has the ability from birth to respond positively to me or the gospel unless the Father who sent me supernaturally regenerates their ontological nature and irresistible draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

Do you find the re-wording to be theologically correct?
Well, I do not think I have any problem with the above statement. I probably would not use the term "ontological nature" but that is a whole other discussion. This pertains to the nature of regeneration, but let us continue.

This is the Bogeyman label argumentation that allows the adherent to avoid addressing the substance of the argument by labelling (incorrectly as noted below) the person.

If you go to the CARM.org website run by Matt Slick, a well-known Calvinist, you will find four conditions in the definition of Pelagianism. Since the content only agreed with one point, this is the same as non-Christians saying Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians because they believe in the existence of God. This over generalization ignores the fact that they do not believe the Trinity among other things. Agreement on one point does not equal agreement on all points. This sort of argumentation is either born of a lack of understanding or intellectual dishonesty. I assume you made the statement out of not enough knowledge of the facts.
No, I am not using the term as some sort of Bogeyman. The concept of pelagiansim is simply that opinion which denies original sin. Arminianism is closer to Calvinism in this regard. The Methodist stay within orthodoxy by their concept of universal prevenient grace. They see freewill as lost in the fall, but restored in a universal prevenient grace. We can discuss this below.

No, when we look at Genesis 3 we see that Adam sinned and Eve sinned. Both sinned and both received a punishment for their own actions. Eve was not punished for Adam’s sin, she was punished for her own act of sin. The consequences of the punishment each received is still experienced by people today. For example, pain in childbirth and thorns growing in the ground. Their choices, like our Grandparents choices, have consequences in the lives of future generations. The consequences do not show that the nature of Adam or Eve changed in respect to their ability to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action.
The above is an excellent example of a pelagian statement. This is opposite of passages like psalm 51:5. David says "I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin my mother did conceive me. This is not talking about his mother doing a sin, but of the fact that David was born into a rebellion. The only way out of that rebellion (called original sin, or total depravity) is the exception clause in John 6:44. God draws us out of that rebellion.

You are presenting man as having a much more neutral state. Ephesians 2:3 says were were by nature children of wrath.

Romans 5 talks about Adam in relation to how his sinful action provided consequences that effected the world and those who are in it.

NASB Rm 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned-

Here Paul explains that “sin entered the world.” It does not say, sin entered people or every person. Then it says, “and death through sin.” Death enters the world because of sin being in the world. Death spreads to everyone because everyone sins. “Sinned” is used in the past simple tense of the verb, sin therefore referring to the act of having committing sin and not the state of being a sinner. It did not say; because everyone has the guilt of Adam’s sin or that everyone was born a sinner. Grammatically, you cannot separate the spread of sin from the active sinning due to the word “because” being a subordinating conjunction making the “all sinned” a dependent clause.

You are truly defending pelagianism. No, death does not spread to everyone because of our sins, but because of sin. This is speaking of one sin, Adams sin. The "one man" in verse 12 is Adam. Actually, sins occurred with Eve, before Adams sins. But sin enters into the world, not with Eve's sins, but with Adams sin. In Romans 5:12, the death there is not physical death, but spiritual death. The term death is being used the same way in Ephesians 2:1... we are dead in our sins and trespasses.

The result of Adam committing sin is that his offspring are now in world containing both sin and death.

NASB Rm 5:13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not counted against anyone when there is no law.

Here we see God’s mercy in not counting a person’s sin against them prior to the knowledge to the Law.

NASB Rm 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the violation committed by Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Death entered the world because of Adam’s sin and death effects those in the world. (This is the minimization that brings the charge of pelagianism--- Death does not merely "effect" people, but they are born dead. Of course this is a spiritual death.) People who had not committed sin like Adam did, are still in a world which has death in it. They will experience death whether they commit a sin or not. This is the result of a change of environment not a change of nature.

The chapter then goes on to contrast how Adam’s actions opened the door to sin and death, while Jesus actions opened the door to life eternal. None of this supports the doctrine of inherited sin (as Wayne Grudem calls it.) We have inherited a world that ensures every person will become a sinner before they are 6 years old (although I expect that every two-year-old has already sinned by disobeying their parents and become a sinner.)

Adam is spoken of in 1 Cor 15 because his sin resulted in death entering the world. It does not speak about him because his sin changed humanity’s nature. The only thing mentioned is death.

In the context of this passage Paul is telling Christians about their former ways as unbelievers. No one disputes that the nature of a sinner is to sin like the nature of an alcoholic is to get drunk. This in no way shows a condition from birth. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon also defines this use of nature as indicating by long habit and references Eph 2:3 which I provided at the start of post #53.

If your nature has been changed by your sin then you need God to change you. Interesting to note, in the rest of the verse you did not quote it says this applies to those who "are accustomed to evil" which is referencing habitual behaviour. This points away from a nature from birth.

As per you comment later in your post, you acknowledge I do think sinners are dead in sin. Verses that show people are dead in sin do not equal verses showing people are born dead in sin. Bible verses showing a person is born dead in sin are required to justify your interpretation. (There is no other way to read psalm 51:5 than to see David as born in sin at his conception).

Yes, as sinners' people do need to be transformed from death to life but there is no Bible verse that shows sinners are incapable of accepting to the gospel.

What scripture do you supply to show the world is dead? (Romans 3:19)

Context is a very important part hermeneutics and the Psalms use figurative language, including this one. Verse 3 states "my sin is ever before me" which is expressing how much David is thinking about his transgression. Verse 7 says “Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;” which is referring to the purification from transgressions as hyssop was used in the Passover and other sacrifices. If a literal interpretation is applied to verse 3 then David is referring to the actions of his mother and circumstances of his conception. To interpret verse 5 as referring to people being born sinners requires a non-literal interpretation. If the correct interpretation is not literal, then there are more than one possibility including David lamenting his actions to the point where he uses hyperbole to show how sinful he sees himself regarding his actions. Even though this scripture does not contradict the doctrine of a sinful nature from birth, it does not support it either.
(and you say your not pelagian? Davids mother, the wife of Jesse, has no record of any sin in the scripture). Verse 3 is talking about Davids sin with Bathsheba, not his mothers sin. I suspect you are confusing Bathsheba with Davids mother.
 
Upvote 0

ReverendRV

Active Member
Jun 4, 2022
137
42
57
Georgia
✟10,267.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith in Chapter 9 Paragraph 1 and 2 describes Adam and Eve as having free will (the ability to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action) prior to the fall.

There appears to be no scriptural basis for believing this ability was lost at the fall without violating good Bible interpretation principles.

How would you answer this with scripture and good hermeneutics?
I would start with James 1:14 NIV; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed...
 
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

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,939
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,674.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith in Chapter 9 Paragraph 1 and 2 describes Adam and Eve as having free will (the ability to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action) prior to the fall.
There appears to be no scriptural basis for believing this ability was lost at the fall without violating good Bible interpretation principles.
How would you answer this with scripture and good hermeneutics?
It starts with the Biblical meaning of free will; i.e.,
the power to choose (execute) voluntarily, without external force or constraint, what one prefers, likes.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ReverendRV

Active Member
Jun 4, 2022
137
42
57
Georgia
✟10,267.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
It starts with the Biblical meaning of free will; i.e.,
the power to choose (execute) voluntarily, without external force or constraint, what one prefers, likes.
Read this Clare...

Chapter 3 - God's Decree
1. From all eternity God decreed everything that occurs, without reference to anything outside himself.1 He did this by the perfectly wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably. Yet God did this in such a way that he is neither the author of sin nor has fellowship with any in their sin.2 This decree does not violate the will of the creature or take away the free working or contingency of second causes. On the contrary, these are established by God’s decree.3 In this decree God’s wisdom is displayed in directing all things, and his power and faithfulness are demonstrated in accomplishing his decree.4 Chapter 3 - God's Decree

Basically these Calvinists said 'The Freedom of the Will is Established as a Secondary Cause'...
 
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
There appears to be no scriptural basis for believing this ability was lost at the fall without violating good Bible interpretation principles.

How would you answer this with scripture and good hermeneutics?

John 8:34
Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the slave of sin. that is, totally under the addiction to evil with no free will at all UNTIL their rebirth.

The reborn are FREE: Galatians 5:13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. and as this indicates, they are free to indulge in the flesh OR free to serve in love. This would indicate that their addicting enslavement to sin [John 8:34 Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.] is broken / cured but until they are fully sanctified they still remember the pleasures and profits of sin, some, alas, more than others. This abiding sinfulness is dealt with in Hebrews 12:5-11. When our loving service is no more called filthy rags but fine linen, we will be fully freed from sin and our free will fully addicted to righteousness: Rev 19:8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white; for the fine linen is the righteousness acts of the saints...
 
Upvote 0

Gup20

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 11, 2019
654
136
45
Albertville
✟157,738.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't think we have "free will." We cannot choose, for example, to reject God and be saved. I do think God gives man a distinct binary choice:

[Deu 30:19 NASB20] 19 "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have placed before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,​
 
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

Gup20

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 11, 2019
654
136
45
Albertville
✟157,738.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
adam, eve weren't sinners.
Adam was created VERY GOOD with a divine nature, and no sin in him whatsoever, but he violated that nature to commit the first sin. Therefore it is not a logical assumption that one cannot violate their dominant nature, especially given that man now knows both good and evil.
 
Upvote 0

Gup20

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 11, 2019
654
136
45
Albertville
✟157,738.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I guess he had a sinless parent, God. If Jesus was my father, I guess I wouldn't be a sinner. I'm still thinking of what I just said. What state would Jesus children be in if he had any? sinless kids? I think I'm going to upset someone here.
Isaiah 53:6 (NASB20)
All of us, like sheep, have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the wrongdoing of us all To fall on Him.​

2 Corinthians 5:21 (NASB20)
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin in our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.​

Galatians 3:13 (NASB20) Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written: “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE”--​

The real question is how did Jesus become righteous again (and resurrect to life) after having the sin of the whole world laid upon Him. If he took back His righteousness, wouldn’t we get back our sin?

hint:
Hebrews 13:20 (NASB20)
Now may the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, that is, Jesus our Lord,​

Genesis 17:7 (NASB20) “I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your seed after you throughout their generations as an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your seed after you.

Galatians 3:16 (NASB20) Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as one would in referring to many, but rather as in referring to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ.

Genesis 15:5-6 (NASB20) 5 And He took him outside and said, “Now look toward the heavens and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” And He said to him, “So shall your seed be.” 6 Then he believed in the LORD; and He credited it to him as righteousness.

Galatians 3:6-9 (NASB20) 6 Just as Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. 7 Therefore, recognize that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU.” 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.​

Jesus inherited his own righteousness back through Abraham & Gods covenant with him that his seed would inherit the righteousness he was given (Christ’s righteousness).

Romans 8:15-17 (NASB20) 15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons and daughters by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.​
 
Upvote 0

Gup20

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 11, 2019
654
136
45
Albertville
✟157,738.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So what does Abraham have to do with free will?

consider the biggest error/fallacy in the salvation models that Calvin & Arminius shared in common (why both their systems are wrong) is neither of them understood that faith DOES NOT qualify a person for righteousness. The purpose of faith is to qualify a person for human adoption as a descendant of Abraham.

Both Calvin & Arminius got this wrong. Both assumed that there was a direct relationship between faith & righteousness. This error is why the debate has never resolved. Hard to resolve when both are wrong for the same reason. But what we see is an indirect relationship between faith & righteousness. When we have the same faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ that Abraham had, we are counted as his descendants & heirs of Christs righteousness which was given to Abraham & then God promised as an inheritance to his seed.

We don’t need to be spiritually regenerated for human adoption, so T in TULIP becomes totally a moot point (total depravity). Even a totally depraved person can have human adoption.

Gods elect or chosen people are a GROUP - the descendants of Abraham. That group has open enrollment based on the choice of each individual.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,939
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,674.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So what does Abraham have to do with free will?

consider the biggest error/fallacy in the salvation models that Calvin & Arminius shared in common (why both their systems are wrong) is neither of them understood that faith DOES NOT qualify a person for righteousness. The purpose of faith is to qualify a person for human adoption as a descendant of Abraham.
Then you don't understand the Biblical "righteousness" of Genesis 15:6 nor Romans 4:2-3.
Both Calvin & Arminius got this wrong. Both assumed that there was a direct relationship between faith & righteousness. This error is why the debate has never resolved. Hard to resolve when both are wrong for the same reason. But what we see is an indirect relationship between faith & righteousness. When we have the same faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ that Abraham had, we are counted as his descendants & heirs of Christs righteousness which was given to Abraham & then God promised as an inheritance to his seed.

We don’t need to be spiritually regenerated for human adoption, so T in TULIP becomes totally a moot point (total depravity). Even a totally depraved person can have human adoption.

Gods elect or chosen people are a GROUP - the descendants of Abraham. That group has open enrollment based on the choice of each individual.
 
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

Gup20

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 11, 2019
654
136
45
Albertville
✟157,738.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Romans 5 talks about Adam in relation to how his sinful action provided consequences that effected the world and those who are in it.

NASB Rm 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned-

Here Paul explains that “sin entered the world.” It does not say, sin entered people or every person. Then it says, “and death through sin.” Death enters the world because of sin being in the world. Death spreads to everyone because everyone sins. “Sinned” is used in the past simple tense of the verb, sin therefore referring to the act of having committing sin and not the state of being a sinner. It did not say; because everyone has the guilt of Adam’s sin or that everyone was born a sinner. Grammatically, you cannot separate the spread of sin from the active sinning due to the word “because” being a subordinating conjunction making the “all sinned” a dependent clause. This means people are not guilty of Adam’s sin but from their own.

NASB Rm 5:18 So then, as through one offense the result was condemnation to all mankind, so also through one act of righteousness the result was justification of life to all mankind.

In this verse the offense and the act of righteousness is juxtaposed so that if you interpret the condemnation to apply to all then the justification applies to all. Since not all are justified unless you believe universalism of salvation the interpretation is wrong. The use of the phrase “the result was” is what shows that the condemnation and justification is not a direct application but a cause-and-effect occurrence. The cause and effect is to all and effects all who meet the cause whether it is on the side of condemnation or justification. This does not show guilt or condemnation for Adam’s sin.
I agree with you, Paul. Rom 5:12 says "death spread to all mankind" it does not say "sin spread to all mankind." Adam's UNIVERSAL judgement was "for dust you are and to dust you will return." I say "universal judgement" because God cursed mankind, animal kind, plant kind, and the ground itself... a universal judgement for a single sin.

This universal, corporate judgement begs the question; what happens if you have 1 righteous person? Well it would mean that corporate judgement would be unjust. It would require a repeal of the corporate judgement in lieu of individual judgements.

Additionally, try to make sense of this apparent contradiction:

Numbers 14:18
The LORD is slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, forgiving iniquity and transgression; but He will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generations.

Ezekiel 18:20
The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

This seems at first to be contradiction, but then you realize that Ezekiel is future prophecy. Numbers describes the law, and what now is. Because of Christ, that original universal judgment of death will be repealed in lieu of individual judgments. Then, as John 5:28 says, there will be a resurrection of all – the good to a resurrection of life, and the evil to a resurrection of a second judgment and a second death.

2 Timothy 1:10
10 but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,

Notice how death (Adam’s death judgment) is abolished by Christ’s appearing, not by his sacrificial death and resurrection. The very presence of a single person without sin into the world necessitates a repeal (abolishing) of Adam’s death judgment… a vacating of the universal judgment in lieu of individual judgments at the Great White Throne.

What would happen if Adam's judgement were repealed? A full resurrection of ALL people and animals who died under the first, caproate, universal judgement.

Acts 24:15
having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.

John 5:28
“Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,
29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.


Revelation 21:8
“But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

Daniel 12:1
Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued.
2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt
.

So ALL are resurrected to face a second judgement. The great white throne judgement is an individual judgment.

Rev 20:11-14 NASB 11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them; and they were judged, each one [of them] according to their deeds. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.​
 
Upvote 0