The "Free Will" Dilemma

[MamaZ]

Who is responsible for man being unable to repent? But man is able but unwilling. Who is responsible for him being unwilling. Right--Adam. So obviously it is just to hold man accountable.

Man is responsible.. Man is not able. All men are born dead in their tresspasses..

 

[samcarternx]

Man is responsible.. Man is not able. All men are born dead in their tresspasses..

Don't all men have a measure of faith?

 

[elman]

Man is responsible.. Man is not able. All men are born dead in their tresspasses..

No. Babies are not born dead of their trespasses. Babies are born spiritually alive. They only become spiritually deceased when they are able to bring about the death of their soul by their own sin. Ezekiel 18.

 

[guuila]

No. Babies are not born dead of their trespasses. Babies are born spiritually alive. They only become spiritually deceased when they are able to bring about the death of their soul by their own sin. Ezekiel 18.

...and in the same breath you say no person can live a sinless life. Gotta love inconsistency.

 

[elman]

...and in the same breath you say no person can live a sinless life. Gotta love inconsistency.

Babies who never reach adult hood do live a sinless life.

 

[Hammster]

Babies who never reach adult hood do live a sinless life.

And you know that how?

 

[Edward65]

Babies who never reach adult hood do live a sinless life.

What is true of David is true of everyone because of original sin:
“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me”. (Psalm 51:5 ESV)

 

[pshun2404]

What is true of David is true of everyone because of original sin:
“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me”. (Psalm 51:5 ESV)

Not agreeing here with Elman but why must Calvinists always eisegete this passage? Psalm 51:5 says nothing of David being iniquitous at birth the passage speaks of his parents iniquity only, and the Hebrew word here "conceived" (yacham - to make or be hot, to mate) these are two totally different things. This is just saying their union was of lust not love.

I know you have been convinced of this incorrect eisegesis (as I was), but it only speaks to the extent to which early Calvinist theologians went to make the scriptures appear to say something they do not (like how they misinterpret and misapply the idea of God being Sovereign). IMO such chicanary with the word to try and beguile the less informed (though convincing those already convinced) shows a lack of respect for the plenary communication of the Holy Spirit through His word.

I suggest as a brother in Christ that you not use this passage to prove a point it does not address or confirm. People who know the word (other than those so persuaded) know better...why did they even stoop to such tricks (though I sincerely know this was not your intent as you believe the preconceived conclusion)? I find it sad and lacking intellectual integrity (a need in the soul to use false evidence to support a case weak at best if one considers the whole of the word on the matter).

And also the ESV changes the meaning of the word Chuwl (writhing and twsiting) to "brought forth". Now yes it can be speaking of David being birthed as in travailing (again speaking of the mother not him) but more correctly it addresses the action of their lust (now do not say that I am claiming sex between married people is iniquitous, evil, bad, or dirty because I am not...lust is selfish and pleasure oriented only...we all know what that is like, as opposed to compassionately loving one another to meet the one another's need and share one another in intimacy).

In His love

Paul

 

[crimsonleaf]

Not agreeing here with Elman but why must Calvinists always eisegete this passage? Psalm 51:5 says nothing of David being iniquitous at birth the passage speaks of his parents iniquity only, and the Hebrew word here is not "brought forth" it is "conceived" (yacham - to make or be hot, to mate) these are two totally different things.

I know you have been convinced of this incorrect eisegesis but it only speaks to the extent to which early Calvinist theologians went to make the scriptures appear to say something they do not (like how they misinterpret and misapply the idea of God being Sovereign). IMO such chicanary with the word to try and beguile the less informed (though convincing those already convinced) shows a lack of respect for the plenary communication of the Holy Spirit through His word.

I suggest as a brother in Christ that you not use this passage to prove a point it does not address or confirm. People who know the word (other than those so persuaded) know better...

In His love

Paul

I agree that there are better ways of making the same point, but don't lump all Calvinists together. Arminians will famously misapply verses left, right and centre to make a point.

Many of us here who are thought of as Calvinists weren't taught to be. We reached untutored decisions about God and sovereignty through the study of Scripture, not at the feet of men. Calvinism is a convenient label, nothing more. Most of us have never even read Calvin, myself included.

 

[Hammster]

I agree that there are better ways of making the same point, but don't lump all Calvinists together. Arminians will famously misapply verses left, right and centre to make a point.

Many of us here who are thought of as Calvinists weren't taught to be. We reached untutored decisions about God and sovereignty through the study of Scripture, not at the feet of men. Calvinism is a convenient label, nothing more. Most of us have never even read Calvin, myself included.

That's the main reason I stated the Canons thread. Most of haven't read much Calvin. And even if we haven't read the Canons, we pretty much agree with them.

 

[shturt678]

What is true of David is true of everyone because of original sin:
“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me”. (Psalm 51:5 ESV)

btw, "free-will" + infants are not guilty = antichristian propaganda, ie, Rev.13. "enslaved-will" X infants are guilty = 1 truth we can take to the eternal bank and deposit.

 

[Edward65]

Not agreeing here with Elman but why must Calvinists always eisegete this passage? Psalm 51:5 says nothing of David being iniquitous at birth the passage speaks of his parents iniquity only, and the Hebrew word here "conceived" (yacham - to make or be hot, to mate) these are two totally different things. This is just saying their union was of lust not love.

I know you have been convinced of this incorrect eisegesis (as I was), but it only speaks to the extent to which early Calvinist theologians went to make the scriptures appear to say something they do not (like how they misinterpret and misapply the idea of God being Sovereign). IMO such chicanary with the word to try and beguile the less informed (though convincing those already convinced) shows a lack of respect for the plenary communication of the Holy Spirit through His word.

I suggest as a brother in Christ that you not use this passage to prove a point it does not address or confirm. People who know the word (other than those so persuaded) know better...why did they even stoop to such tricks (though I sincerely know this was not your intent as you believe the preconceived conclusion)? I find it sad and lacking intellectual integrity (a need in the soul to use false evidence to support a case weak at best if one considers the whole of the word on the matter).

And also the ESV changes the meaning of the word Chuwl (writhing and twsiting) to "brought forth". Now yes it can be speaking of David being birthed as in travailing (again speaking of the mother not him) but more correctly it addresses the action of their lust (now do not say that I am claiming sex between married people is iniquitous, evil, bad, or dirty because I am not...lust is selfish and pleasure oriented only...we all know what that is like, as opposed to compassionately loving one another to meet the one another's need and share one another in intimacy).

In His love

Paul

I don't agree with your interpretation of this verse. If you look at the context the verse is obviously referring to David and not his parents:

[TO THE CHOIRMASTER. A PSALM OF DAVID, WHEN NATHAN THE PROPHET WENT TO HIM, AFTER HE HAD GONE IN TO BATHSHEBA.]

[51:1] Have mercy on me, O God,
according to your steadfast love;
according to your abundant mercy
blot out my transgressions.
[2] Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity,
and cleanse me from my sin!
[3] For I know my transgressions,
and my sin is ever before me.
[4] Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you may be justified in your words
and blameless in your judgment.
[5] Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.
[6] Behold, you delight in truth in the inward being,
and you teach me wisdom in the secret heart.
(Psalm 51:1-6 ESV)

If the meaning of verse 5 is that David was conceived in the heat of lust what has this got to do with the context which is talking of David being a sinful person?

Ed

 

[Haloman800]

I can't see how anyone could argue against free will. A rapist takes away the free will of their victim, that is evil. For God to take away our free, for us to be cast into eternal hellfire for something that we had no way to prevent, akin to being punished for a crime you didn't commit, that is evil.

I believe God is good, therefore I believe we have free will.

 

[Hammster]

I can't see how anyone could argue against free will. A rapist takes away the free will of their victim, that is evil. For God to take away our free, for us to be cast into eternal hellfire for something that we had no way to prevent, akin to being punished for a crime you didn't commit, that is evil.

I believe God is good, therefore I believe we have free will.

Most Calvinists (that I know, anyway) affirm that our wills are free to do as we most desire.

 

[guuila]

Not agreeing here with Elman but why must Calvinists always eisegete this passage? Psalm 51:5 says nothing of David being iniquitous at birth the passage speaks of his parents iniquity only, and the Hebrew word here "conceived" (yacham - to make or be hot, to mate) these are two totally different things. This is just saying their union was of lust not love.

I know you have been convinced of this incorrect eisegesis (as I was), but it only speaks to the extent to which early Calvinist theologians went to make the scriptures appear to say something they do not (like how they misinterpret and misapply the idea of God being Sovereign). IMO such chicanary with the word to try and beguile the less informed (though convincing those already convinced) shows a lack of respect for the plenary communication of the Holy Spirit through His word.

I suggest as a brother in Christ that you not use this passage to prove a point it does not address or confirm. People who know the word (other than those so persuaded) know better...why did they even stoop to such tricks (though I sincerely know this was not your intent as you believe the preconceived conclusion)? I find it sad and lacking intellectual integrity (a need in the soul to use false evidence to support a case weak at best if one considers the whole of the word on the matter).

And also the ESV changes the meaning of the word Chuwl (writhing and twsiting) to "brought forth". Now yes it can be speaking of David being birthed as in travailing (again speaking of the mother not him) but more correctly it addresses the action of their lust (now do not say that I am claiming sex between married people is iniquitous, evil, bad, or dirty because I am not...lust is selfish and pleasure oriented only...we all know what that is like, as opposed to compassionately loving one another to meet the one another's need and share one another in intimacy).

In His love

Paul

For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:19 ESV)

Babies are guilty in Adam.

 

[Edward65]

I can't see how anyone could argue against free will. A rapist takes away the free will of their victim, that is evil. For God to take away our free, for us to be cast into eternal hellfire for something that we had no way to prevent, akin to being punished for a crime you didn't commit, that is evil.

I believe God is good, therefore I believe we have free will.

Since God knows everything that’s going to happen in the future the future is fixed and can only happen as God has foreknown it will turn out, therefore everything is predestined to happen as He has foreknown it, which means that human beings have no free will to alter and decide something different than God knows we’ll choose. So since we can’t choose to do anything different than God knows we’ll choose we don’t have free will, as free will means you have the ability to make a contrary choice which alters the future. The argument that God foreknows what people with free will will decide to do is bogus, as freedom is opposed to omniscience. Freedom means you can invalidate any prediction of your future choices as you have the freedom to choose differently than forecast you will do. Therefore everything is predestined to happen as is taught in Isaiah “remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ (Isaiah 46:9-10 ESV)

With respect to why we don’t have free will to believe the Gospel and become Christians Christ in John 6 says that the reason why people are unbelievers isn’t because they choose not to believe, but is because God the Father hasn’t drawn them to Christ and granted them the ability to believe: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day…. But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” (John 6:44, 64-65, ESV).

So only those who God chooses to save can become Christians and since God makes this choice before people are born and predestines them to be saved as is taught by Paul in Romans 8 & 9 and Ephesians “In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will”, (Ephesians 1:11 ESV) there’s no free will to choose to become Christians. God chooses us and regenerates us and we become Christians just as happened to St Paul who was changed from a violent opponent to Christianity to being a Christian. Paul didn’t become a Christian through free will because God had to first change his violently opposed will so that he would willingly be a Christian. Before we’re regenerated and become Christians we’re all slaves to sin and incapable of choosing to repent and believe in Christ. “But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness”. (Romans 6:17-18 ESV)

Those who aren’t predestined to be saved are of course predestined to be damned but since the human race is sinful through original sin, God’s consigning of them to hell doesn’t mean this is like punishing people for crimes they didn’t commit. Although they had no free will other than to commit crime they still will to commit crimes, and it is for this which they are punished.

 

[guuila]

The problem is the heart.
The problem is the heart.
The problem is the heart.
The problem is the heart.
The problem is the heart.

I don't know why people get so hung up on free will. The will is free to choose whatever the heart desires. It's the desires of the heart that are broken. Unregenerate man does not desire God. That is the problem. Unregenerate man is a slave to sin. The mind of unregenerate man is set on the flesh, and is hostile to God. The heart must have divine surgery, whereby the heart of stone is replaced by a heart of flesh. Then and only then will a man desire God. Then and only then will the will choose aright.

For the life of me I can't understand why synergists don't understand this.

 

[shturt678]

Most Calvinists (that I know, anyway) affirm that our wills are free to do as we most desire.

....where God gave the power to apply oneself to the things that make for salvation, ie, all have a sinful "enslaved-will" including those little precious babies.

 

[janxharris]

The problem is the heart.
The problem is the heart.
The problem is the heart.
The problem is the heart.
The problem is the heart.

I don't know why people get so hung up on free will. The will is free to choose whatever the heart desires. It's the desires of the heart that are broken. Unregenerate man does not desire God. That is the problem. Unregenerate man is a slave to sin. The mind of unregenerate man is set on the flesh, and is hostile to God. The heart must have divine surgery, whereby the heart of stone is replaced by a heart of flesh. Then and only then will a man desire God. Then and only then will the will choose aright.

For the life of me I can't understand why synergists don't understand this.

If the will can only choose what the heart desires, such that the heart is predetermined to an evil bias, and a single set of choices is possible, then it is hardly 'choice' at all. Unregenerate man has a conscience, so his hostility to God is in some way balanced out.

I can't understand why you don't recognise the contradiction of compatibilsm.

The only real disagreement is regarding the extent of God's regenerating influence and it's efficacy.

 

[janxharris]

Most Calvinists (that I know, anyway) affirm that our wills are free to do as we most desire.

What would the guaranteed outcome of such a free will choice be of a man who is born into original sin whilst having a conscience?