Free will

[Radagast]

No, I have not forgotten - thanks.

Anyone who is interested. Radagast has some quotes from the Westminster Confessions. Not Johnathon Edward's article

I was responding to your (partial) quote from the WCF.

 

[JackSparrow]

I was responding to your (partial) quote from the WCF.

Beg your pardon Radagast. I kind of get lost with all these threads. Thanks for the links on free will.

 

[cygnusx1]

Say what you will, but the absolute best work done on "free-will" is Jonathan Edwards work.

To this day, not a single person has discredited it.

Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will

This is basis of the current study I'm in (free will) for the last nine months.

God Bless

Till all are one.

This by far is the best work I have ever read on the free will issue , clear as daylight and complete :

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Place-Sover...8812/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1360835700&sr=8-1

 

[DeaconDean]

This by far is the best work I have ever read on the free will issue , clear as daylight and complete :

No Place for Sovereignty: Amazon.co.uk: R.K. McGregor Wright: Books

I might chaeck it out.

But I still like Edwards.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[cygnusx1]

I might chaeck it out.

But I still like Edwards.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I have Edwards complete works BOT ED.

 

[DeaconDean]

I have Edwards complete works BOT ED.

One of my seminary teachers directed me to this great work.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[cygnusx1]

One of my seminary teachers directed me to this great work.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Even the Dispensationislt Darby was anti free will , he could see how ridiculous it is to have two sovereigns , nothing would ever be accomplished , we once had two heads of a political party striving to get elected : the electorate rejected them for obvious reasons , and that goes for why God says there is only one head of the Church and one head of the family ..... To keep confusion at bay .




A Letter On Free-will
-- J.N.Darby (Elberfeld, October 23rd, 1861)


This fresh breaking out of the doctrine of free-will ministers to the pretension of the natural man not to be entirely lost, for that is just what it amounts to. All who have never been deeply convicted of sin, all those with whom this conviction is based on gross and outward sins, believe more or less in free-will. You know that it is the dogma of the Wesleyans, of all reasoners, of all philosophers; but it completely changes the whole idea of Christianity, and entirely perverts it.


If Christ came to save that which is lost, free-will has no more place. Not that God prevents man from receiving Christ -- far from it. But even when God employs all possible motives, everything that is capable of exerting influence over the heart of man, it only serves to prove that man will have none of it, that his heart is so corrupt, and his will so determined not to submit to God (however much it may be of the devil who encourages him in sin), that nothing can induce him to receive the Lord, and to forsake sin. If, by liberty of man, they mean that no one forces him to reject the Lord, this liberty exists in full. But if it is implied that, on account of the dominion of sin of which he is the slave, and that voluntarily, he cannot escape from his condition, and choose the good -- even while acknowledging it to be good, and approving of it -- then he has no liberty whatever. He is not subject to the law, neither indeed can be; so that, they that are in the flesh cannot please God.


And this is where we touch most closely upon the root of the question. Is it the old man that is changed, instructed and sanctified; or do we, in order to be saved, receive a new nature? The universal character of the unbelief of the present day is this: not formally denying Christianity, as in former times, or rejecting Christ openly, but receiving Him as a Person -- they will even say divine, inspired (but as a matter of degree) -- who re-establishes man in his position as a child of God. The Wesleyans, as far as taught of God, do not say that; faith makes them feel that without Christ they are lost, and that it is a question of salvation. Only their fear with regard to pure grace, their desire to gain men, a mixture of charity and of the spirit of man; in a word, their confidence in their own strength, makes confusion in their teaching, and leads them not to recognize the total ruin of man.


As for me, I see in the Word, and I recognize in myself, the total ruin of man. I see that the cross is the end of all the means that God has employed to gain the heart of man, and, consequently, that it proves the thing to be impossible. God has exhausted all His resources; man has shown that he was wicked, past recovery; the cross of Christ condemns man -- sin in the flesh. But this condemnation having been expressed in that another has undergone it, it is the absolute salvation of those who believe, for condemnation, the judgment of sin, is behind us; life came out of it in resurrection. We are dead to sin, and alive to God, in Christ Jesus our Lord. Redemption, the very word, loses its force when we entertain these ideas of the old man. It becomes an amelioration, a practical deliverance from a moral state, and not a redeeming by the finished work of another. Christianity teaches the death of the old man, and his just condemnation, then redemption accomplished by Christ, and a new life, eternal life, come down from heaven in His Person, and which is communicated to us when Christ enters into us by the Word. Arminianism, or rather Pelagianism, pretends that man can choose, and that thus the old man is ameliorated by the thing it has accepted. The first step is made without grace, and it is the first step which truly costs in this case.


I believe that we ought to keep to the Word; but, philosophically and morally speaking, free-will is a false and absurd theory. Free-will is a state of sin. Man ought not to have to choose, as being outside of good. Why is he in that state? He ought not to have a will, any choice to make -- he ought to obey, and enjoy in peace. If he has to choose good, then he has not got it yet. He is without that which is good in himself, at any rate, since he is not decided. But, in fact, man is disposed to follow that which is evil. What cruelty to propose a duty to man who is already turned to evil! Moreover, philosophically speaking, to choose, he must be indifferent, otherwise he has already chosen as to his will -- he must then be absolutely indifferent. Now, if he is absolutely indifferent, what is to decide his choice? A creature must have a motive; but he has none, since he is indifferent; if he is not, he has chosen.


But, in fact, it is not so; man has a conscience, but he has a will and lusts, and they lead him. Man was free in paradise, but then he was in the enjoyment of good. He made use of his free-will, and consequently he is a sinner. To leave him to his free-will, now that he is disposed to do evil, would be cruelty. God has presented to him the choice, but it was to convince the conscience of the fact that, in any case, man would have neither good nor God. That people should believe that God loves the world is all right; but that they should not believe that man is in himself wicked beyond remedy (and notwithstanding the remedy) is very bad. They know not themselves, and they know not God. The Lord is coming, dear brother; the time for the world is passing away. What a blessing! May God find us watching, and thinking only of one thing -- of Him about whom God thinks -- Jesus, our precious Saviour.

Happy reading

 

[RisingSpirit]

Yeah, this forum has been in need of its own kind of reformation lately. It's been fun to watch the rare glimpses of real conversation amidst all the foot stompin'.

I think the real issue is that some are not ashamed to be held captive or be puppet slaves to the Lord. The free willers are shameful to have any rights taken from them and want that opportunity to reject Jesus as if they could.

How can the Elects even think about any possibility of rejecting Jesus as their Lord and Savior? And how dare the free willers say, "Let's obey the Lord", as if they might obey Him if they feel like it at the time or if they want to? They look around among themselves in the eyes and say, "Let's do it", as if we could if they wanted too.

We're really watching the free willers foot stompin' themselves over each other while the Elects rejoice to be slaves of the Lord. The unregenerates scramble among themselves looking for a way out of obedience and claim some rights to be free and almighty.

It's childish to foot stomp in free will.

​

​

 

[Shulamite]

I think the real issue is that some are not ashamed to be held captive or be puppet slaves to the Lord. The free willers are shameful to have any rights taken from them and want that opportunity to reject Jesus as if they could.

How can the Elects even think about any possibility of rejecting Jesus as their Lord and Savior? And how dare the free willers say, "Let's obey the Lord", as if they might obey Him if they feel like it at the time or if they want to? They look around among themselves in the eyes and say, "Let's do it", as if we could if they wanted too.

We're really watching the free willers foot stompin' themselves over each other while the Elects rejoice to be slaves of the Lord. The unregenerates scramble among themselves looking for a way out of obedience and claim some rights to be free and almighty.

It's childish to foot stomp in free will.​

Amen, my thoughts as well. I rejoice at being a slave of Jesus... knowing that He's revealed His Sovereign nature to me and that my life was planned by Him before the creation of the world! (Psalm 139). I love Him so much that the idea of me making my own free-will decisions is REPULSIVE TO ME. I rejoice that He has shown me His true identity as the Sovereign choice-maker of all things, past, present and future.

Most in my life call ME prideful for being a Calvinist.I tell them that their free-will theism is prideful to me! I am convinced of the Lord that that no man/woman can see this truth of the Lord unless He reveal it!

 

[JackSparrow]

"The unregenerates scramble among themselves looking for a way out of obedience and claim some rights to be free and almighty."

Only if so ordained by God. Why mock what God has set forth ?

 

[cygnusx1]

Spurgeon preached :

"Thirdly, that men must make themselves willing to come to Christ, otherwise they will not be saved. Now, we shall have no such divisions; but we will endeavour to take a more calm look at the text; and not, because there happen to be the words "will," or "will not" in it, run away with the conclusion that it teaches the doctrine of free-will.

It has already been proved beyond all controversy that free-will is nonsense. Freedom cannot belong to will any more than ponderability can belong to electricity. They are altogether different things. Free agency we may believe in, but free-will is simply ridiculous "

 

[JackSparrow]

Free Agency ?

 

[cygnusx1]

Free Agency ?

Absolutely. !!!

 

[student ad x]

......... How can the Elects even think about any possibility of rejecting Jesus as their Lord and Savior?

The elect of God do not know they are elect. It is through the foolishness of the Gospel, with a heart made of flesh, that sinful men believe. The doctrine of election is for the comfort of those in Christ, knowing well that God has a plan that He has and will finish completely.

And how dare the free willers say, "Let's obey the Lord", as if they might obey Him if they feel like it at the time or if they want to? They look around among themselves in the eyes and say, "Let's do it", as if we could if they wanted too

Remember, that everything given us by God should be used for edification. How our compassion shows through our dialogue to those who don't agree with us glorifies God.

We're really watching the free willers foot stompin' themselves over each other while the Elects rejoice to be slaves of the Lord. The unregenerates scramble among themselves looking for a way out of obedience and claim some rights to be free and almighty.

It's childish to foot stomp in free will.​

I think there is enough foot stomping to go around on all sides, God's admonitions through Paul to be angry but do not sin, seems to get lost when a cherished view of God's nature is attacked in debate. ​

 

[Skala]

Free Agency ?

Free agency means:
To do what you will

But free will, in the strictest sense, means:
To will what you will

See the difference?

 

[JackSparrow]

Free agency means:
To do what you will

But free will, in the strictest sense, means:
To will what you will

See the difference?

Yes, thank you. I guess none of us disagrees with 'do what you will'

The big debate being can man will what he wills. Having read Jonathon Edwards I would go along with no, at some point there must be a first cause.

There is some fuzziness for me. E.g tonight I did not want to go to home groups though I went even though it was not through desire or anything like that. Some people are addicted to say smoking or alcohol. They wish to give up so they use a nicotine patch or some medication. They are willing against there will.


I have said many times on this forum, I don't believe the vast majority of non calvinists holds to total free will. At least for me it seems like a chicken and egg scenario or bottomless pit.

 

[cygnusx1]

Yes, thank you. I guess none of us disagrees with 'do what you will'

The big debate being can man will what he wills. Having read Jonathon Edwards I would go along with no, at some point there must be a first cause.

There is some fuzziness for me. E.g tonight I did not want to go to home groups though I went even though it was not through desire or anything like that. Some people are addicted to say smoking or alcohol. They wish to give up so they use a nicotine patch or some medication. They are willing against there will.


I have said many times on this forum, I don't believe the vast majority of non calvinists holds to total free will. At least for me it seems like a chicken and egg scenario or bottomless pit.

There is a Biblical case for what you describe : Romans 7 , where Paul speaks of doing what he didn't will and willing what he couldn't do.


Romans 7

[14] For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
[15] For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
[16] If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
[17] Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
[18] For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
[19] For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
[20] Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
[21] I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
[22] For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
[23] But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

 

[JackSparrow]

There is a Biblical case for what you describe : Romans 7 , where Paul speaks of doing what he didn't will and willing what he couldn't do.


Romans 7

[14] For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
[15] For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
[16] If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
[17] Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
[18] For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
[19] For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
[20] Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
[21] I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
[22] For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
[23] But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

Thanks, I will study this some more.

 

[Skala]

There is some fuzziness for me. E.g tonight I did not want to go to home groups though I went even though it was not through desire or anything like that. Some people are addicted to say smoking or alcohol. They wish to give up so they use a nicotine patch or some medication. They are willing against there will.
.

I would not agree. They are still doing what they want to do, when they smoke/drink. They may feel regret later, but at the moment of choice, they take one more drink because they want to. Thus they are acting in accordance with (not against) their desires.

Feeling regret later and wanting to change doesn't change the fact that their actions were exactly what they desired. At the moment of choice, their desire to drink/smoke was greater than their desire to not drink/smoke. It's simply that the greatest desire won, as is expected.

That being said, this isn't really a case of willing what you will. It's still a case of "doing what you will".

Willing what you will means that you can choose what to desire. Such a thing is impossible yet that is what true free will would imply.

 

[RisingSpirit]

The elect of God do not know they are elect. ...

That creates more foot stompin'. Arminians would say you should know you're saved and the Calvinist would say you don't know til you get to Heaven. If Jesus is firstborn and not yet returned as the Second Coming then that would mean no one is in Heaven yet. That would confirm the Seventh-Day Adventist or Jehovah witness on soul sleep. We're pretty dead after death till Judgement day and then we'll find out who are the elects.