I am not sure where this goes but

[grasping the after wind]

Basically then, it depends on rather you learn from it?

That is my opinion, yes.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

so no one wants in?

All true Christians want in, but not all of the time, because of fleshly desires, we at times shamefully cherish sin more than Christ. Unsaved religious people may also want it, but they do cherish sin more than Christ, all of the time. The natural person, the carnal mind is at enmity with God and with that I dare say lacks the desire to live for eternity with the one they're against and so opposed to.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I think that God draws us to Himself, but allows US to choose. The reason is that while we cannot come to Him and He must show Himself He will not force us to accept a gift.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I think that God draws us to Himself, but allows US to choose. The reason is that while we cannot come to Him and He must show Himself He will not force us to accept a gift.

We only choose Him after the fact, He chose us first, and creates the desire to choose Him where there was no desire. The problem with trying to cling to T, while holding onto a notion that fallen man dead in trespasses and sin can muster up something good from within to make a good spiritual decision which pleases God is that it's contradictory. Without faith it is impossible to please God, and the natural man has not that saving faith, but rather a dead faith in accordance with a dead fallen nature.

The free will argument reduces sin to....not that bad, to sinful compared to who, something we have within ourselves with the ability to overcome. These notions are contrary to Scripture.

 

[dogs4thewin]

We only choose Him after the fact, He chose us first, and creates the desire to choose Him where there was no desire. The problem with trying to cling to T, while holding onto a notion that fallen man dead in trespasses and sin can muster up something good from within to make a good spiritual decision which pleases God is that it's contradictory. Without faith it is impossible to please God, and the natural man has not that saving faith, but rather a dead faith in accordance with a dead fallen nature.

The free will argument reduces sin to....not that bad, to sinful compared to who, something we have within ourselves with the ability to overcome. These notions are contrary to Scripture.

I said that He draws us, but THEN WE choose if we want that gift. It is not a gift if we cannot reject it and, for that matter it is not love if we cannot reject it.

 

[grasping the after wind]

We only choose Him after the fact, He chose us first, and creates the desire to choose Him where there was no desire. The problem with trying to cling to T, while holding onto a notion that fallen man dead in trespasses and sin can muster up something good from within to make a good spiritual decision which pleases God is that it's contradictory. Without faith it is impossible to please God, and the natural man has not that saving faith, but rather a dead faith in accordance with a dead fallen nature.

The free will argument reduces sin to....not that bad, to sinful compared to who, something we have within ourselves with the ability to overcome. These notions are contrary to Scripture.

I take exception to one of the things you said.
Rather than making sin not that bad the concept of free will makes sin worse as it says we had a choice and chose to sin when we could have chosen not to. We do not normally consider that one that does something wrong because they were not responsible for their action was worse than one that was in control of their own actions yet still chose to do something wrong.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I take exception to one of the things you said.
Rather than making sin not that bad the concept of free will makes sin worse as it says we had a choice and chose to sin when we could have chosen not to. We do not normally consider that one that does something wrong because they were not responsible for their action was worse than one that was in control of their own actions yet still chose to do something wrong.

Ever read "The Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther? I'm quite the Lutheran when it comes to a doctrine of the human will. FTR, Calvinists do not deny human responsibility as is so commonly misunderstood. All the proof one needs of this is to look to the Reformed creeds and confessions. WCF states it rather plainly.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I said that He draws us, but THEN WE choose if we want that gift. It is not a gift if we cannot reject it and, for that matter it is not love if we cannot reject it.

Left to our own devices to wallow in a sinful nature, all we would ever do is reject it. If we have to do something to receive it, then it is conditional, when grace is unmerited favor to the undeserving. God is always looking after His own, even when we would reject that which we need, namely mercy and grace. A child may reject a gift from their parents, but even so, they are still children of their parents, and because of this, they may come to accept that which they once rejected.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Ever read "The Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther? I'm quite the Lutheran when it comes to a doctrine of the human will. FTR, Calvinists do not deny human responsibility as is so commonly misunderstood. All the proof one needs of this is to look to the Reformed creeds and confessions. WCF states it rather plainly.

Perhaps you could put any objection to what I said into your own words. Seeing as I was courteous enough to state my objections to your statement in my own words rather than citing the writings of third parties as if your ignorance was too vast for me to be bothered responding on my own before you remedied the situation by concerted study, I would like to have the same consideration extended to myself. I made no claims about Calvinists nor did I attempt to refute Luther. I merely stated my honest disagreement on a small point of your previous post. If you have nothing of your own to say upon the subject, rather than attempting to assign me a reading lesson it would be much more in keeping with the spirit of Christian fellowship to simply remain mute.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Perhaps you could put any objection to what I said into your own words. Seeing as I was courteous enough to state my objections to your statement in my own words rather than citing the writings of third parties as if your ignorance was too vast for me to be bothered responding on my own before you remedied the situation by concerted study, I would like to have the same consideration extended to myself. I made no claims about Calvinists nor did I attempt to refute Luther. I merely stated my honest disagreement on a small point of your previous post. If you have nothing of your own to say upon the subject, rather than attempting to assign me a reading lesson it would be much more in keeping with the spirit of Christian fellowship to simply remain mute.

I fail to see how my response warranted such a response. Anyway, Martin Luther's "The Bondage of the Will" was written in response to the Roman Catholic scholar Erasmus and the Romish doctrine of free will which Luther clearly rejected. Yet he obviously did not reject human responsibility either, if he had, he would have blamed God, and not the Roman authorities in his 95 Theses. Your first response presupposes a denial of any freedom of the will, and pushes that into what I said, which was almost as insulting as your second response. Perhaps you should seek fellowship outside of the semper area, seeing as you're not Reformed and trying to spark up debate, when the man behind the whole Lutheran denomination would vehemently disagree with you and use more colorful language than I, and do it better than I.

 

[JM]

...when the man behind the whole Lutheran denomination would vehemently disagree with you and use more colorful language than I, and do it better than I.

I love Luther.

“But I resist the devil, and often it is with a fart that I chase him away”

 

[dogs4thewin]

Left to our own devices to wallow in a sinful nature, all we would ever do is reject it. If we have to do something to receive it, then it is conditional, when grace is unmerited favor to the undeserving. God is always looking after His own, even when we would reject that which we need, namely mercy and grace. A child may reject a gift from their parents, but even so, they are still children of their parents, and because of this, they may come to accept that which they once rejected.

that is not ALWAYS the case, if it was then people raised right ( with good morals) would never turn out wrong criminal ECT parents can raise their children in a particular way but once they are adults they choose rather to follow that.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

that is not ALWAYS the case, if it was then people raised right ( with good morals) would never turn out wrong criminal ECT parents can raise their children in a particular way but once they are adults they choose rather to follow that.

True, but forcing your child to take the medicine they don't want but need is not loving?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

A real life example of this, the other day my wife took our son to the doctor, he's only a few months old, to get his first round of vaccinations. Our son had no choice in the matter, was it not love that prompted us to make certain he received vaccinations (whether he wants them or not) from harmful if not deadly diseases?

True love will sometimes impose out of necessity, further the loving choices of God, take precedence over creaturely choices. Ultimately, who can resist the will of God? Has the clay power to override the Potter's choice? I think not.

 

[dogs4thewin]

A real life example of this, the other day my wife took our son to the doctor, he's only a few months old, to get his first round of vaccinations. Our son had no choice in the matter, was it not love that prompted us to make certain he received vaccinations (whether he wants them or not) from harmful if not deadly diseases?

True love will sometimes impose out of necessity, further the loving choices of God, take precedence over creaturely choices. Ultimately, who can resist the will of God? Has the clay power to override the Potter's choice? I think not.

Yes we can refuse the will of God. If He wills me to do something I do not want to do I will not do it. For example, if He wants me to go share the word in a particular place and I do not get on the plane that is MY choice. Can He make my life heck until I do yes but do I have to do it no. If I am willing to deal with the pain here and everlasting then so be it. Can He make me go to the mid-week service I do not want? No I have decided I do not want to go, as an adult mother does not make me so if I do not go and miss a chance to share the word or bring myself closer to God whatever that is my choice. She cannot make me even if she did I could either not listen to the word OR leave the house walk out leave I am old enough to do that and not be tracted down by force.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Yes we can refuse the will of God. If He wills me to do something I do not want to do I will not do it. For example, if He wants me to go share the word in a particular place and I do not get on the plane that is MY choice.

Jonah tried that, didn't work out the way he planned tho.

Can He make my life heck until I do yes but do I have to do it no. If I am willing to deal with the pain here and everlasting then so be it. Can He make me go to the mid-week service I do not want? No I have decided I do not want to go, as an adult mother does not make me so if I do not go and miss a chance to share the word or bring myself closer to God whatever that is my choice. She cannot make me even if she did I could either not listen to the word OR leave the house walk out leave I am old enough to do that and not be tracted down by force.

Did you choose when or where you would be born? Did you choose your parents? Did you choose the cloths you would wear when you were a child? I merely ask because there are so many examples or instances where we have no choice, like the natural transformation of hair color to grey. Something you ought to consider is how God conditions our choices, and perhaps admit human limitations when it comes to understanding the will of God. Honestly, I do not understand why God even allows all that He allows (don't know that I ever will), but whatsoever He allows, does He not also will, if not actively, passively? Can God not supernaturally intervene in human affairs at whatever points He so chooses? Wasn't it God that chose to reveal Himself to mankind in the first place? And did He not choose Israel out of all nations? IOW, Israel did not choose God, God chose Israel, and His commandments, out of love, and not meant as options, alternatives, or things for consideration.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Jonah tried that, didn't work out the way he planned tho.



Did you choose when or where you would be born? Did you choose your parents? Did you choose the cloths you would wear when you were a child? I merely ask because there are so many examples or instances where we have no choice, like the natural transformation of hair color to grey. Something you ought to consider is how God conditions our choices, and perhaps admit human limitations when it comes to understanding the will of God. Honestly, I do not understand why God even allows all that He allows (don't know that I ever will), but whatsoever He allows, does He not also will, if not actively, passively? Can God not supernaturally intervene in human affairs at whatever points He so chooses? Wasn't it God that chose to reveal Himself to mankind in the first place? And did He not choose Israel out of all nations? IOW, Israel did not choose God, God chose Israel, and His commandments, out of love, and not meant as options, alternatives, or things for consideration.

Jonah tried that, but he could have still tried some more if he wanted to God did not MAKE him go. He just made it when he didn't go awful so he would go did not make him. While I cannot choose my parents I can choose to hate their guts. God chose Israel but they chose to follow His will, if they had followed him to begin with they would not have spent 40 years wondering. Each person also chose, for example, if I am an adult I can eat what I want no matter if God sees it as unclean or not.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Jonah tried that, but he could have still tried some more if he wanted to God did not MAKE him go. He just made it when he didn't go awful so he would go did not make him. While I cannot choose my parents I can choose to hate their guts. God chose Israel but they chose to follow His will, if they had followed him to begin with they would not have spent 40 years wondering. Each person also chose, for example, if I am an adult I can eat what I want no matter if God sees it as unclean or not.

If we assume free will in the manner you propose, we can only conclude, that in reality, very rarely is God's will ever accomplished or carried out, and most of what happens here on planet earth, is the will of men, not the will of God. Free will then is sovereign, and God Himself must bow to it. What a scary proposition!

 

[dogs4thewin]

If we assume free will in the manner you propose, we can only conclude, that in reality, very rarely is God's will ever accomplished or carried out, and most of what happens here on planet earth, is the will of men, not the will of God. Free will then is sovereign, and God Himself must bow to it. What a scary proposition!

See the way I see free will is God's will will be done, BUT each person chooses whether they will be a part of that OR rather they will fight that will and not be part of fullfilling the plan. Why is it so scary?

 

[grasping the after wind]

I fail to see how my response warranted such a response. Anyway, Martin Luther's "The Bondage of the Will" was written in response to the Roman Catholic scholar Erasmus and the Romish doctrine of free will which Luther clearly rejected. Yet he obviously did not reject human responsibility either, if he had, he would have blamed God, and not the Roman authorities in his 95 Theses. Your first response presupposes a denial of any freedom of the will, and pushes that into what I said, which was almost as insulting as your second response. Perhaps you should seek fellowship outside of the semper area, seeing as you're not Reformed and trying to spark up debate, when the man behind the whole Lutheran denomination would vehemently disagree with you and use more colorful language than I, and do it better than I.

You have yet to justify your contention that sin would be less bad if there were free will. Instead you have constructed a strawman arguing in favor of the doctrine of free will and sicced Martin Luther and his colorful language on him . Let me refresh your memory on what I actually posted and if you wish to dispute what I actually posted feel free but if not please at least do not accuse me of being an acolyte of Erasmus or arguing for the doctrine of free will as there is no reasonable way to read my post as in any way showing evidence of that.

I take exception to one of the things you said.
Rather than making sin not that bad the concept of free will makes sin worse as it says we had a choice and chose to sin when we could have chosen not to. We do not normally consider that one that does something wrong because they were not responsible for their action was worse than one that was in control of their own actions yet still chose to do something wrong.