Catholic Dude said:
The "limitations" are due to it being "weakened".
Here's the problem CD: You regularly refer to post-Fall man as having "free will." You define "free will" as "the ability to choose good
or evil when given the choice." In fact, man having "free will" is foundational to your views on salvation. Then, as if to deny this very thing, you say that, without the help of God, man
can't choose good. This is not an issue of permission CD. It's an issue of inherent inability. You have violated the law of non-contradiction by claiming that man has both the ability to "choose good or evil when given the choice" and that man is "incapable of choosing good." Again I ask, what seems either logical about such contradictory claims, and, in what way does that describe a will that is "free?"
The council uses the term "weakened" a few times, how do you understand this?
If you mean to ask how I understand the usage of the word "weakened" as it is used in the Canons of the Council of Orange I would clarify that I acknowledge that the term "weakened" is used to describe a will that was so impaired by the propagation of sin that it is incapable of inclining itself towards good or God by its own power. If you would also use the term "free" to describe such a will then you and I have very disporportionate usages of that qualifier.
I dont mean free in the sense that the person can will a million dollars appear or that they can become divine. Adam was confined to a body and to the earth, before he fell he couldnt do whatever he wanted in the sense as if he had absolute power.
Okay, then how do you mean "free will" with regard to a creature that cannot choose good from the power of his own will unless God grants him that ability? Also, in what way does God enable men to choose good?
First of all I shouldnt have said the original comment your responding to here. Without God's help man cant do good.
Well, I agree with that for sure.
As for what you put here, I guess it depends on how we define "unregenerate" in relation to "only evil continuously". The
Council states free will was weakened and is restored via Baptism. Yet the person has to acknowledge he wants to be Baptized and physically arrive at the place to be Baptized so "regeneration" hasnt fully happened yet, yet we see that this move towards Baptism is not an act of "only evil continuously".
CD, despite what you and your church claim, regeneration from death in our trespasses and sins to life in the Lord Jesus is not effected through
water baptism. That is a fanciful and unbiblical notion that man has created to cloak the fact that he includes his own righteous choices in the salvation process. That same council states this:
And we know and also believe that even after the coming of our Lord this grace is not to be found in the free will of all who desire to be baptized, but is bestowed by the kindness of Christ, as has already been frequently stated and as the Apostle Paul declares, "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake" (Phil. 1:29).
Clearly baptism is not the means by which regeneration is effected or it would have that result in all who are baptized, which it surely doesn't.
The irony here is that you contend that man, before he is regenerated, desires to be baptized and, in fact, goes to be baptized and to prove this you erroneously cite rulings from councils that say quite the opposite. The very words that you cite decry what you claim, "
If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others
through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man,
it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. The very beginnings of desire for baptism are the product of the Lord's work, also something stated in what you cite, "If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism --
if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6)."
Here we are clearly told that the "increase in faith"
as well as "the very desire for faith" is something that is "a gift of grace." Your theology has man doing something by faith, i.e., seeking to be baptized, before they are ever even regenerate.
I think I see what your saying, but your forgetting the fact that free will has been weakend.
Well, as I think I've made clear, I think that calling a will "weakened" is nothing more than a watered down version of how Paul describes the same will of man, i.e.,
dead in trespasses and sins. This "weakening" is akin to death because man, like those who are dead, is powerless. And the "weakness" of the will in fallen man is so pronounced that we even both agree that, in its "weakened" state, it cannot even choose good. I simply think that the term "weakened" does not properly convey man's corruption or impairment.
Why cant someone be enabled to choose and later on as their choice reject to obey God?
They absolutely can, if we're speaking in a general sense. Do you mean to apply this same reasoning to salvation? If so, it simply will not work. Salvation is not the result of a choice we make. It is the result of a choice God made before the foundations of the world and then accomplishes during the course of history. We are the recipients of the benefits of His choice.
Isnt that what happens when someone who has turned to Christ and yet later sins?
Certainly.
We have the ability to displease God.
As this was never a point of contention, I fail to see why you state it now.
I never disagreed here. In any good work someone does, God's grace was there, even if they never heard of God in their life, God's grace was behind it. If a man were to do a good deed then God's grace was there even if the man didnt realize it.
I agree completely though, unlike you, I don't contradict that by claiming that man's will is "free." I contend that man makes the decisions he makes freely and in accordance with whatsoever is his strongest desire. That will, prior to God's releasing him from bondage, is not free but, rather, acts only in the interests of his sinful flesh.
Now the question becomes how long is grace present and to whom is it present.
Both easy questions. Grace is present as long as God gives it and it is present to whomsoever He gives it.
I dont know the extent to which God helps everyone, is there at a minimum help He gives to all that is just enough to make it? Its clear some people are blessed with different abilities and even preaching authority so I would say He doesn not help every one to the same degree.
I'm not speaking of God's gracious gifts of abilities. I'm speaking of God's gracious dispensation of
salvitic grace, by which He sovereignly and efficaciously compels one to faith through His work of regeneration.
As for the "absolutely no poistive effect" in those who go to hell, Im not sure what you mean here. A person can become a Christian and later fall away.
I do not deny that true believers can fall into darkness after being enlightened but I disagree with you that he can fall away to his utter destruction. God will never lose any whom He has made His own.
As far as if its mans will that determines the efficacy. Grace comes before a good act, yet the good act must be done. We know all men who are able to do good dont do equal amounts of good so from that I would say man has to have an influence on the situation. Jesus also said something about men being called "Greatest" and "Least" in the kingdom of Heaven.
Again, I am speaking of salvation, not simply acts of virtue. You, and your church, contend that salvation is the product of man's choice to "accept Jesus." What I'm asking is, is the grace that proceeds such a choice given to all men without exception and, if so, why is it impotent to bring many to saving faith?
If I understand you right, how else do you explain people who fall from grace?
I don't contend that it is a failure of the grace of God to accomplish the purpose for which it was given. I merely acknowledge the efficacy of God's grace and the sinful inclinations of even regenerate man. Therefore, if God determines to withhold His grace that His will may be revealed then man, often being disposed to act according to his old man, will desire and pursue that which God has forbidden, oftentimes leading to their falling back into sinful lifestyles. The Lord, however, has promised to not abandon those who are His and will, once again, raise them up from the muck into which they've fallen.
When anyone does a good deed they have no room to boast because they were unable to it by themself. In terms of if the can "only choose to do evil", that depends, Paul says God wont let us be tempted beyond what we can handle, from that I would suppose that the ability to not do evil is always present (at least in a regenerated person).
If you are speaking of regenerate people then you and I are in agreement on this area. This ability, however, is instilled in us by God's work of regeneration so it is not present in the hearts of those who have yet to be regenerated.
Why would a man in a perfect state need grace, did he need saving?
It is the grace of God that maintains man's very existence. Adam's "salvation" was his to maintain, and pass on, or forfeit. We all know which he chose. Salvation is not the only grace which God gives to man. He blessed Adam abundantly in the Garden, giving him dominion, providing for him sustenance. Are these not graces in your eyes?
In terms of if man "ever lacked a will" that is addressing the idea that man has no control of his actions and rather his actions were prearranged by God. (eg someone equating a murderer as no different than a preprogrammed robot acting as a hitman sent by God.)
I see. Your clarification makes sense now. Thank you.
I never said grace didnt come first.
I am well aware that you never denied grace comes first, which is why I asked whether there was a
prevenient prevenient grace which man has only the ability to accept which frees his nature and makes him capable of then choosing whether to "reject the grace or work with it?" You see CD, unless there is a point in the process at which man's will is changed
without his cooperation, what you are saying is that a will that cannot choose good without the grace of God must choose to cooperate with the grace of God so that he may be freed from his inability to choose good. This, of course, makes absolutely no sense being that the choice to cooperate with the grace of God is clearly a good choice. That would mean that a man who is incapable of choosing good without the grace of God chooses good that the grace of God may help him choose good.
Yet how do you explain people who once did good turn and displease God later in their life?
One example, if someone were Baptized then that is a clear indication God led them to become a Christian, however how is that person able to do evil later in life?
Let me once again clarify that I am in full agreement that God's common grace is given to all without exception, thus, by the power of God, all men without exception are capable of a
measure of good in the form of civic righteousness. However, it is the
salvitic grace of God that He dispenses exclusively to His elect. Regarding the institution of salvation, man makes no decision. He is the recipient of the covenant between the members of the Godhead.
God bless
An Arminian who holds to the eternal security of the believer is like a Calvinist who believes that God will cast away one of His elect-- the very thought makes no sense. 
