The "Free Will" Dilemma

[Hammster]

Tell him exactly what the eisegesis is that he has stated. Your general response lacks specifics of how he violated by using eisegesis.

I'm just giving the same type of answer you've given when we ask why a post is a red herring.

Not really helpful, right?

 

[OzSpen]

Tell me exactly what the red herring is that I have stated earlier. Your general response lacks specifics of how I violated by using a red herring.

That's another red herring.

You can use Google to discover the meaning of a red herring. That cannot be done to determine the specifics of an accusation of eisegesis.

 

[OzSpen]

I'm just giving the same type of answer you've given when we ask why a post is a red herring.

Not really helpful, right?

You can use Google to discover the meaning of a red herring. You can't use Google to discover the specifics of an accusation of eisegesis in a specific post on CF.

Bye, Oz

 

[guuila]

That's another red herring.

Tell me exactly what the red herring is that I have stated. Your general response lacks specifics of how I violated by using a red herring.

You can use Google to discover the meaning of a red herring. That cannot be done to determine the specifics of an accusation of eisegesis.

You're telling me to explain *how* he committed eisegesis. I'm telling you to explain *how* I committed a red herring. Googling "red herring" isn't going to explain to me how exactly I committed a red herring. Category error on your part.

 

[guuila]

You can use Google to discover the meaning of a red herring. You can't use Google to discover the specifics of an accusation of eisegesis in a specific post on CF.

Bye, Oz

Can you use Google to discover the "specifics" of an accusation of eisegesis?

 

[OzSpen]

Tell me exactly what the red herring is that I have stated. Your general response lacks specifics of how I violated by using a red herring.

You're telling me to explain *how* he committed eisegesis. I'm telling you to explain *how* I committed a red herring. Googling "red herring" isn't going to explain to me how exactly I committed a red herring. Category error on your part.

It was to Hammster that I originally asked to provide him with the specifics of exegesis, not you.

 

[guuila]

It was to Hammster that I originally asked to provide him with the specifics of exegesis, not you.

Okay. So in order to avoid not holding others to a standard you don't hold yourself to (which is hypocrisy by the way), why don't you explain the specifics of how I committed a red herring?

 

[Hammster]

You can use Google to discover the meaning of a red herring. You can't use Google to discover the specifics of an accusation of eisegesis in a specific post on CF.

Bye, Oz

It's true that google the definition. But we cannot google why you thought a particular post was a red herring. That's why we ask for clarification.

 

[guuila]

I googled "how did I commit a red herring against Oz". Didn't really help.

https://www.google.com/search?q=how...ome.0.57j62l2.8478j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Any other ideas of how we might know exactly how we're committing these fallacies against you Oz? Should we try another search engine like Yahoo?

 

[Edward65]

I was just wondering whether some of those on this thread who agree with predestination to heaven and hell and who say they believe in free will understand by free will something different to how it’s normally defined and this has led to some confusion, because I don’t really understand why when you agree that we are predestined to believe or disbelieve that you also want to maintain the idea that we have free will.

I agree that people sin voluntarily and aren’t coerced to sin (and therefore we are responsible for our actions), but the fact that people aren’t compelled against their will to sin doesn’t mean we have free will. Free will in the context of salvation is that we have the ability to decide to accept God’s grace and be saved, but since you agree that we are enslaved to sin as the Scriptures teach, and our hearts are always averse to repentance and believing in Christ, and that we therefore can’t choose to repent and believe, it follows we don’t have free will.

Don’t you agree that for a will to be free it must be capable of exercising that free will and if it can’t do so because it has been corrupted through original sin and can only choose to reject God, that it can’t in reality be described as free?

To argue that we have free will because if our hearts weren’t corrupted by original sin we could choose to repent and believe is surely a mistaken argument because with the same logic I could argue that I have the ability to fly like a bird and live like a fish, that is if I had wings and could breathe under water. If the reality is that you haven’t got the ability to do something because there’s always something stopping you exercising that ability then in reality you don’t have that ability. Therefore as we don’t have the ability to repent and believe because we’re corrupted by sin we don’t have free will.

To maintain that we have free will but we can’t use it is a contradiction in terms because freedom to do something means you can do it and there’s nothing stopping you from doing it. If something always stops you from doing something then you’re not free to do it. So since we can’t repent and believe because we’re enslaved to sin it follows we don’t have free will.

To argue that we have free will contradicts predestination to heaven and hell. Since God has predestined people to be saved or damned according to His will it's impossible that we can have free will, because free will implies that we can exercise that freedom of decision and choose to either reject God's grace or accept it according to our will not His. So that settles it. The Scriptures teach that we don't have free will because they teach that God predestines us to heaven and hell.

 

[Jack Terrence]

They deny the resurrection for similar reasons why some today deny that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead.... The evidence for all to read or hear does not guarantee that people receive it.

Oz

The Greek word translated "assurance" is pistis which means "faith."

"He has given faith to all men by raising Him from the dead."

You did not deal with my point that there were Gentiles living in Paul's day who had never heard of Jesus Christ and His resurrection.

Also, the Titus 2 passage cannot mean what you think it means. Never in Paul's day had the grace of God appeared to "all men" indiscriminately. It appeared to Jews and Gentiles alike. This is what the scripture means when it says "all men."

 

[revhewett]

Welcome to the Forum. I'm pleased that you have joined us.

If there is no dilemma with free will, as you see it, does that mean that you accept that when it comes to salvation in Christ that people can choose to accept or reject the offer? Or, do you have another view?

In Christ, Oz

I see no dilemma. There are two streamlined views and I believe a person can accept or reject the offer. This offer from God is given freely to and for all men, but will not be accepted by all. To hold any other view is to make God a puppetmaster.

 

[guuila]

This offer from God is given freely to and for all men, but will not be accepted by all.

Does God guarantee all men will hear this "offer"?

To hold any other view is to make God a puppetmaster.

Explain.

 

[Jack Terrence]

I can't see that Jn 15:18-25 defines 'world' as you say it does.

This is why you misinterpret the scriptures. You read them superficially.

In 15:18-24 Jesus told His disciples that the "world" would hate them as it hated Him. Then in verse 25 He said that the world hated Him "as it is written in THEIR law." This excludes the Gentiles. The reference to "THEIR law" clearly identifies the "world" as the Jews.

The "world" of 16:8 which the Holy Spirit convicts is the same "world" of the Jews of 15:18-25. Thus, the conviction is NOT unto salvation,

He will convict the world of sin. This is probably not a reference to the conviction that leads to repentance and salvation, but to the exposure of humanity's inexcuseable guilt. Reformation Study Bible note, page 1695

I agree that it is a reference to the exposure of inexcuseable guilt, but only of the guilt of the Jews who rejected Jesus.

 

[Jack Terrence]

IThis offer from God is given freely to and for all men....

No sir it is not!

To hold any other view is to make God a puppetmaster.

This would be true if God made the offer to those He has no intention of saving. But He does not make the offer to all. Those He has no intention of saving He leaves to themselves. He doesn't even bother with them.

 

[guuila]

Last I checked, repent and believe is a command. Not an offer.

 

[Brother Chris]

Last I checked, repent and believe is a command. Not an offer.

This is true. The Gospel is a command. Those who disobey it, are condemned.

 

[samcarternx]

Does God guarantee all men will hear this "offer"?



Explain.[/QUOTE

This is response to puppetmaster reference. Can anyone think of a better master than the Lord?

 

[pshun2404]

No sir it is not!

This would be true if God made the offer to those He has no intention of saving. But He does not make the offer to all. Those He has no intention of saving He leaves to themselves. He doesn't even bother with them.

1 Timothy 2:1-4 says "I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; Who would have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

I'll go with the word of God...not what someone tells me it means.

In His love

Paul

 

[revhewett]

Last I checked, repent and believe is a command. Not an offer.

So Jesus didn't offer his life as a sacrifice? In affect, an extension of his grace being given by the offering?