Some harmful side effects of free will.

[Dave L]

The New Birth in Christ is to perfect God's love in us. God's love was made evident time
and time again to Israel, and many who loved His word manifested His love in the Old Testament.
The Torah was not totally devoid of power, but those who indulge their flesh nature rendered the Law
unable to give life and love to them. You do realize that men of God in the New Birth have returned to the flesh and committed murder. Perfect love is achieved by perfect obedience, but that would require a sincere commitment of the will, "not mine but yours be done".
"For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh"
Those who have received the Holy Spirit are without excuse, as you would seem to be teaching,
and yet people WILLFULLY turn back to their weak and beggarly nature. Here is something from
the scriptures that may help you see this:
2 Peter 2:
20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning.
21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.
22 But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: “A dog returns to his own vomit,”
and, “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.”
Free Will that turns back to the pollutions of the world is a dog's nature, a swine's nature.

I don't consider long posts. What's your point.

 

[Minister Monardo]

That's why babies die in the womb.

And what about the ones who don't die in the womb? Do only Christians have babies now?
You are not making a point here Dave. Yes, all have a sinful nature in Adam. That is actually
in the Bible. Does not mean that people are incapable of doing good, they are just incapable of
doing God. See that?
Good/Evil- Adam. God/Not God-Christ.
Many people do good without doing the will of God, which is why Jesus will tell them,
"I never knew you".

 

[Minister Monardo]

Whatever is not of faith is sin. Do you know the Samaritan didn't have faith?

He did not have the Faith of the Son of God, which is where the New Birth you speak of comes.
The Samaritan showed mercy. Human caring for another human. Not the love or the fear of God.

 

[Minister Monardo]

I don't consider long posts. What's your point

That you have failed miserably to make one. Nice try though. I guess we are finished, due to
your lack of attention span.

 

[Dave L]

He did not have the Faith of the Son of God, which is where the New Birth you speak of comes.
The Samaritan showed mercy. Human caring for another human. Not the love or the fear of God.

So you know he was just a run of the mill unbeliever?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Human love is pure sin. God is love and without the Holy Spirit, you can only love at a sinful level.

You have zero evidence from Scripture for your opinions.

 

[FreeGrace2]

If human love isn't rooted in hate, why send people to hell. Even babies die in the womb based on sin.

The Bible tells us specifically WHY people are going to be cast into the lake of fire.

Their names were not in the book of life. Meaning, they rejected the free gift of eternal life. So, in essence, they have sent themselves to the lake of fire.

The opinion about "human love is rooted in hate" is one of the most outrageous, silly and self contradictory statements I've ever heard.

So, a mother's love for her baby is hateful. Yeah, sure. Tell me another one. lol

 

[Minister Monardo]

So you know he was just a run of the mill unbeliever?

How dense! You have been arguing that man is incapable of anything but hate without the New
Birth, and when I mention the Good Samaritan, you flip to the other side. You are debating your
self, we are all just spectators, marveling at the spectacle.

 

[Dave L]

How dense! You have been arguing that man is incapable of anything but hate without the New
Birth, and when I mention the Good Samaritan, you flip to the other side. You are debating your
self, we are all just spectators, marveling at the spectacle.

You must not understand the new birth from a Calvinist's perspective?

 

[FreeGrace2]

You must not understand the new birth from a Calvinist's perspective?

The only thing that is important is the Bible's perspective.

Of course, any Calvinist will simply reply, "well duh, sure". As if their perspective IS the Bible's. Which, of course, it is not.

 

[Dave L]

The only thing that is important is the Bible's perspective.

Of course, any Calvinist will simply reply, "well duh, sure". As if their perspective IS the Bible's. Which, of course, it is not.

What if Calvin was right about sin and grace. Where does that leave you?

 

[FreeGrace2]

What if Calvin was right about sin and grace. Where does that leave you?

I really don't deal with the "what if's,,," kind of questions.

I deal with the "what IS" kind of statements.

And this is what IS: Calvin is easily refuted from Scripture.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

First, free will is a part of Law.

.

Is it? Where int he TORAH is it?

Thinking you can lose your salvation makes having faith that God saved you impossible.

Well as far as I can tell nobody who thinks they can lose their salvation has any problem at all having faith that God has saved them. In fact that is part of the reason they have such faith.

 

[childeye 2]

First, free will is a part of Law. And law cannot save. Free will only leaves people without excuse for breaking laws that cannot save. But this is not true of grace. Grace is unconditional kindness. So when we preach free will salvation, we turn grace into law and the gospel into works. Since Paul stresses the law cannot save, it leaves people with false hope of salvation.

It also focuses a person’s faith in their faith to save them. Instead of on Christ who is the author and finisher of true faith.

It also corrupts God’s image. It turns him into a bully who threatens to torture people forever if they don’t “say uncle”, or do whatever their church tells them to do. And it also turns those who sell their souls for heavenly pleasures into people less than honorable.

If Grace, also known as unmerited favor, is the means of salvation, then God receives full glory for saving us. Otherwise, we rob him of his glory and apply it to ourselves thinking our obedience (goodness) saves us.

Free will only makes salvation impossible. Salvation is by faith but free will says you can lose your salvation. Thinking you can lose your salvation makes having faith that God saved you impossible.

The problem with this issue is that the term 'free will' generally carries a sentiment that mankind is responsible for his/her actions whether good or bad.

In it's premise free will does not account for the occasion that there are two wills at work in mankind, the carnal will and the spiritual will. These two contrary wills carry with them their own predispositions which becomes apparent when we reason what is good/bad, and subsequently act according to which will is dominant. They could also be described as subjective and objective views.

Because the carnal mind cannot see spiritual things, it also cannot be expected to be subject to the spiritual things of God. The spiritual mind however can draw the distinction between carnal desires and spiritual desires so as to act responsibly. Having been transformed from carnal to spiritual, the spiritual mind also must acknowledge that the Spirit is God, and therefore does not manifest according to a creature's prerogative.

 

[Dave L]

.

Is it? Where int he TORAH is it?


Well as far as I can tell nobody who thinks they can lose their salvation has any problem at all having faith that God has saved them. In fact that is part of the reason they have such faith.

Why command someone to do something if they don't have free will?

Why do the cops arrest you if you don't have free will to obey the law?

 

[Dave L]

The problem with this issue is that the term 'free will' generally carries a sentiment that mankind is responsible for his/her actions whether good or bad.

In it's premise free will does not account for the occasion that there are two wills at work in mankind, the carnal will and the spiritual will. These two contrary wills carry with them their own predispositions which becomes apparent in when we reason what is good/bad, and subsequently act according to which will is dominant.

Because the carnal mind cannot see spiritual things, it also cannot be expected to be subject to the spiritual things of God. The spiritual mind however can draw the distinction between carnal desires and spiritual desires so as to act responsibly. Having been transformed from carnal to spiritual, the spiritual mind also must acknowledge that the Spirit is God, and therefore does not manifest according to a creature's prerogative.

So law implies free will. Grace implies the will is bound by sin.

 

[childeye 2]

So law implies free will.

The term free will is problematic. It cannot soundly be reasoned upon, so I can't agree nor disagree with you. For example the issue of guilt carries a legal meaning as well as a spiritual meaning and they're both addressed in the Old Covenant sacrifices. The existence of a conscience would therefore not be indicative of a free will since it compels us to seek absolution. Both the term 'free' needs to be qualified as 'free' from 'what'? And the term 'will' needs to be qualified as either the 'faculty of reasoning', or 'desire'.

Grace implies the will is bound by sin.

If no flesh will be justified through the works of the law, then the law implies the flesh is bound by sin.

Therefore Grace implies the 'carnal will' is bound in sin and the spiritual will is not. I believe it's better understood that Grace through faith implies a positive prejudice towards others in seeing others as one's self, (weak in the flesh). Whereas the works of the law implies a negative prejudice towards others, in that the law is not of faith.

 

[bling]

Wait, what? So "free will" doesn't save us, but a "free will" act does. Doublethink?

We are saved by the free will act of utilizing our faith in trusting God’s Love.

Can it really be your “faith” and not just be a programmed “knowledge” if you do not have free will?

Really? What did we need a Savior for, then? All we had to do was freely will to obtain some Godly love, and an order of sinlessness on the side? Or if "allows" means "doesn't stop us", then it also "allows" me to turn invisible and blow purple smoke.

God is not allowing you to be god and fly around the room. Most choices are the result of our environment, genes and God’s control. Humans just need a very limited autonomous free will to allow them to become like God Himself in that they have Godly type Love.

Free will is needed for Godly type Love, but just because you have free will does not mean you will choose to obtain Godly type Love.

Here is the issue: Godly type Love cannot be made instinctive to people (a knee jerk reaction) for that is a robotic type Love and it cannot be forced on a person (make people accept the Love and thus be made to Love the forcer) the is like the shotgun wedding scenario which would not be Loving on God’s part nor would the “love” obtained be Godly type Love.

The only way the Bible gives and we see in the world for obtaining Godly type Love is by what Jesus taught: “…he that is forgiven much Loves much…” so the debt has to be seen as beyond imagination which we see with the cross and the sinner must believe/trust God’s Love to truly forgive such a huge debt we need to see and experience the greatest example of God’s Love (seen with the cross).

Yeah, that would be like forcing a drowning person out of the sea and into your boat. Clearly unacceptable. BTW, any sentence that contains the phrase "God cannot" is untrue.

First off: If God is just going to be recuing sinners and not trying to help sinners choose to obtain Godly type Love for themselves, then there is no logical or biblical reason for an omnibenevolent God to not rescue all sinners, since He can just as easily and safely recue all sinners, it would show a lack of Love on God’s part not to.

What we have to remember the objective is not just to “save” the person, but the drowning, hardships, threat of death, sins and threat of hell are all there to help the person in distress to become humbly willingly of their own free will to accept help (charity/Love/grace/mercy/forgiveness) as pure charity.

The drowning person does have the gun to his head with drowning, so certainly he will get into the boat and there would be a gratitude type of “love” for the captain and crew, but is that enough for it to be the illogical unselfish sacrificial Godly type Love?

The Good Samaritan “saved” the life of a Jewish man, but we do not know how the hurting Jew felt about that, could the Jewish man have said “I would have preferred to die then have a Samaritan tough me”? Could he have thought: “Some Jew must have really helped this Samaritan in the past for him to help me?” The Samaritan is being Christ like and the way we are to be, but it is not done to make the person helped, to be Loving like the helper.

Notice in the prodigal son story: The Father does not send out servants to help the young son out by forcibly bringing the son back home (which would not have helped the son to become like the father). The young son had the information he needed to return and if the young son reached the point of being humbly willing to accept (even for selfish reasons) the father’s undeserved illogical charity as charity (especially forgiveness) the young son would Love with a Godly type Love, by being forgiven of a huge offence, but again it is the free will choice of the son for he could have reasoned he was getting what he fully deserved by starving to death in a pigsty, so he is not being forced.

And thus we are saved by Own Free Will. Good of God to allow us to do that, innit? But that still doesn't explain why we need a Savior, does it? If an exercise of will is all it takes to be saved, why not just let everyone whether they want to follow the Law or not, and punish those who don't. That's what all other religions say, isn't it?

The torture, humiliation and murder of Christ on the cross helps us to understand how bad sin really is and how great God’s Love must be, so we can know God’s Love is great enough to truly forgive us and how big of a deal sin really is to God. We are also able to experience fair/just Loving discipline by being crucified with Christ (empathetically).

 

[bling]

“Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Romans 3:20 (KJV 1900)

That is not providing a measuring stick, but we experience (have knowledge) of sin.

 

[1213]

Your natural condition at birth in Adam makes it certain you can only reject Christ. ...

Please tell why do you think so?