Writing a book on free will salvation

Josheb

Christian
Site Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
2,197
837
NoVa
✟166,989.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi - so that I get a good overview of the early church view. I have started this thread Earliest Church Father's View of God feel free to participate.
It's good that you seek to get an overview of the early church view.

  1. It is not good that you emphasize the ECFs over scripture.
  2. It is not good that you emphasize the ECFs over basic logic.
  3. It is not good that you have failed to understand what the ECFs wrote in the context of scripture and logic.
  4. It is not good that you take one passage that has nothing to do with humanity in the sinful state and make it apply to sinful humanity.
  5. It is not good that you fail to discuss and reconcile two seemingly disparate passages from the same source, one about the pre-disobedient state and one about the post-disobedient state. It is not good that you fail to stay on topic.
  6. It is not good that you change the topic rather then acknowledge the logically necessary conclusions of your own beliefs.


One good will not counteract a plethora of bad practices.


Given that the will of sinful man cannot usurp God's will, cannot overcome the limitations of creation, and has been adversely effected by sin, is the sinner's will without control and able to do all that it pleases?

Yes or no?
 
Upvote 0

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
4,972
2,886
66
Denver CO
✟203,738.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Just an update on the new book I am writing "The Way and Free Will" - I have been madly writing over the last few days, so it has changed substantially to the original draft I provided on here.

The section on Romans 9 has been massively updated, to explain the whole chapter in light of the Early Church Fathers' view on the passage and scripture.

The link below has the latest draft, and is being continually updated.

https://www.everybodymattersministry.com/downloads/predestination.pdf
From your link: "What is my definition of free will? Free will is the ability to choose how we respond to what God reveals to us."

Please note the above statement is not describing a "free" will, it is simply describing the Noun a "will" (the ability to choose). Please note that this one particular choice/decision is stipulated as in response to what God reveals to us. The adjective "free" will be qualified by whatever the "will" is designated as free from.

From your link: It is the view that our choices are free from any predetermination by God and that human nature does not override our ability to respond to the gospel when the truth is shown to us; the will of the unregenerate man is intact.
Please note that you are qualifying the term "free", as free from, (1) ANY predetermination by God, and (2) That human nature does not "override" our ability to respond to the Gospel.

As it stands, we're dealing with a term (free will) in the form of an equivocation, because it is uncommitted to either an affirmation or negation of the Gospel. The Gospel Truth was predestined to be preached to the world and subsequently believed upon by some, so I'm going to first deal with the unbelieving half of it.

My question: Are you saying that it's a Free will that has the ability to deny the Truth when God shows it, because it's not predestined by God to expose wanton ignorance?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FutureAndAHope

Just me
Site Supporter
Aug 30, 2008
6,362
2,912
Australia
Visit site
✟736,252.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Now you're being disingenuous (or foolish).

From what book did you get that quote?
From Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202] Against Heresies - Book 4 Ch 37:

1. This expression [of our Lord], “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,” (Mat 23:37) set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness. (Rev. Rambaut W. H. 1867, Against Heresies - Book 4 Ch 37)
 
Upvote 0

Josheb

Christian
Site Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
2,197
837
NoVa
✟166,989.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
From Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202] Against Heresies - Book 4 Ch 37:

1. This expression [of our Lord], “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,” (Mat 23:37) set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness. (Rev. Rambaut W. H. 1867, Against Heresies - Book 4 Ch 37)
Yeah... I'm not doing this. You're being dishonest. First answer the question: If the will of the sinful man cannot usurp Gpd's will or overcome the limitations of creation and has been adversely affected by sin then is it free; is it completely without control, unfettered, and able to do all he wants?

Yes or no?

Do not avoid the answer any further. Only after answering the question do you have any basis to bring up Irenaeus and when you do bring up Irenaeus, do so heeding what is actually written!!! because the passage you quoted does not say anything about sinful man. Don't move from one passage to another, then another, then another without ever addressing its actual content. Go back to the first quote: Where does that quote say anything about sinful man?


"This expression [of our Lord], “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,” (Mat 23:37) set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness." (Rev. Rambaut W. H. 1867, Against Heresies - Book 4 Ch 37)​

  • I have already covered the Matthew 23:37 text. My commentary is still sitting in that thread ignored by you.
  • Irenaeus asserts "the ancient law of the human liberty." Irenaeus uses the word I used: liberty, not free. That post is sitting silently ignored by you.
  • God made man free. Yep! God made man a free agent from the beginning. Being a free agent does not mean man is autonomous or without limitation. The word "free" should be understood in the context of all else scripture states and I have listed several examples of those limitations. That post is sitting silently ignored by you.
  • God made man free. Yep! God made man a free agent from the beginning. Sin subsequently enslaved him. You denied that I showed you the scripture explicitly, plainly stating sin enslaves. That post is also sitting silently ignored by you.
  • When Irenaeus said "God made man a free [agent] from the beginning," Irenaeus was talking about man prior to Genesis 3:6. The entire quote makes no mention of sin. Tis too was brought up and that commentary is still sitting in the thread silently ignored as if it was never posted.
  • "From the beginning....." man possesses his own power, his own soul, and he does so to obey God voluntarily (not freely) and not by a compulsion of God. I posted the difference between "voluntarily" and "free." I brought that up before Irenaeus was ever quoted, and that content is sitting in this thread silently ignored by you.
  • God has placed the power of choice so that obedience might possess what is good. Yep. 100% agree. That is not the problem. The problem is sin adulterates everything a man does. Even his righteous acts can be seen by God as filthy rags (Isa. 64:6). I brought this up a dozen posts ago and that commentary is sitting silently ignored by you.
  • God did not bestow what was good on those did not obey Him. They do not diligently keep what God bestowed (the law of human liberty, their free agency). The poured contempt on His goodness.


Irenaeus does not teach what you teach. Irenaeus teaches disobedience has an adverse affect on man and the effect is so adverse it causes man not to keep what God bestowed on him. Your own quote disproves "free will salvation."

It is dishonest to ignore the facts in evidence and pretend like they have not been posted.

Now go back to Post 51 and examine the quote I provided. There the following is stated...
  • The Lord came to the lost.
  • The Lord sought after His own handiwork (not the work of sinful flesh).
  • Man is condemned.
  • Salvation came by the good pleasure (remember "good pleasure" is the correct translation of one of the words used for "will"] of God (not sinful man).
  • Neither God, nor His wisdom, may be conquered or lessened.
  • God acted so that man would lose his life, having been corrupted by the serpent, and there would be no return to life apart from God.
  • The "second man" [Jesus] bound the "strong man" [Satan], and "spoiled his goods." (no mention of human involvement).
  • Man had been in a state of death, but God revived him.
  • It is not possible for men to be gods )what was the first question I asked?)
  • Man was captive, captured, first by the serpent and then by God.
  • Man was loosened from the bonds of condemnation by God.

The two quotes fit together perfectly, but they do not teach what you teach. They do not say the will of the sinful man is free. They say the man who disobeys God loses his God-given law of liberty and become condemned.

John 3:18
He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Scripture plainly states the man who does not believe already has been judged. He has already been judged and what is the verdict?

John 3:19 NIV
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

They love darkness. They do not love the light - the light who made flesh and came into the world. Their deeds are evil, not good. No one is good but God (Mk. 10:18; Rom. 3:10). Salvation comes by the good pleasure of God, not the will or good pleasure of sinful man. Sinful man is "captive," "captured" and bound. That captive, captured, bound condition is loosened by God, not the will of sinful man. That is what Irenaeus taught.

And I covered ALL of this previously with you and all of that content is sitting in the thread(s) silently ignored by you, unattended by you while you attempt diversions and digressions.

It is dishonest.

What you should be doing is answering the question asked directly, immediately, without delay, without equivocation, plainly, concisely, succinctly.


If the will of the sinful man cannot usurp Gpd's will or overcome the limitations of creation and has been adversely affected by sin then is it free; is it completely without control, unfettered, and able to do all he wants?


Yes or No?
 
Upvote 0

FutureAndAHope

Just me
Site Supporter
Aug 30, 2008
6,362
2,912
Australia
Visit site
✟736,252.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You said:

Irenaeus does not teach what you teach. Irenaeus teaches disobedience has an adverse affect on man and the effect is so adverse it causes man not to keep what God bestowed on him.

Let's get one thing done first. You fully butcher the quote from Irenaeus. Here it is in its full context. Contrary to what you say it is 100% speaking of the fact man has free agency regarding salvation.

1. This expression [of our Lord], “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,” (Mat_23:37) set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness. Rejecting therefore the good, and as it were spuing it out, they shall all deservedly incur the just judgment of God, which also the Apostle Paul testifies in his Epistle to the Romans, where he says, “But dost thou despise the riches of His goodness, and patience, and long-suffering, being ignorant that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest to thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” “But glory and honour,” he says, “to every one that doeth good.” (
Rom_2:4, Rom_2:5, Rom_2:7) God therefore has given that which is good, as the apostle tells us in this Epistle, and they who work it shall receive glory and honour, because they have done that which is good when they had it in their power not to do it; but those who do it not shall receive the just judgment of God, because they did not work good when they had it in their power so to do.

2. But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for such were they created; nor would the former be reprehensible, for thus they were made [originally]. But since all men are of the same nature, able both to hold fast and to do what is good; and, on the other hand, having also the power to cast it from them and not to do it, — some do justly receive praise even among men who are under the control of good laws (and much more from God), and obtain deserved testimony of their choice of good in general, and of persevering therein; but the others are blamed, and receive a just condemnation, because of their rejection of what is fair and good. And therefore the prophets used to exhort men to what was good, to act justly and to work righteousness, as I have so largely demonstrated, because it is in our power so to do, and because by excessive negligence we might become forgetful, and thus stand in need of that good counsel which the good God has given us to know by means of the prophets.

3. For this reason the Lord also said, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good deeds, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” (Mat_5:16) And, “Take heed to yourselves, lest perchance your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and worldly cares.” (Luk_21:34) And, “Let your loins be girded about, and your lamps burning, and ye like unto men that wait for their Lord, when He returns from the wedding, that when He cometh and knocketh, they may open to Him. Blessed is that servant whom his Lord, when He cometh, shall find so doing.” (Luk_12:35, Luk_12:36) And again, “The servant who knows his Lord’s will, and does it not, shall be beaten with many stripes.” (Luk_12:47) And, “Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luk_6:46) And again, “But if the servant say in his heart, The Lord delayeth, and begin to beat his fellow-servants, and to eat, and drink, and to be drunken, his Lord will come in a day on which he does not expect Him, and shall cut him in sunder, and appoint his portion with the hypocrites.” (Luk_12:45, Luk_12:46; Mat_24:48, Mat_24:51) All such passages demonstrate the independent will151 of man, and at the same time the counsel which God conveys to him, by which He exhorts us to submit ourselves to Him, and seeks to turn us away from [the sin of] unbelief against Him, without, however, in any way coercing us.

4. No doubt, if any one is unwilling to follow the Gospel itself, it is in his power [to reject it], but it is not expedient. For it is in man’s power to disobey God, and to forfeit what is good; but [such conduct] brings no small amount of injury and mischief. And on this account Paul says, “All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient;” (1Co_6:12) referring both to the liberty of man, in which respect “all things are lawful,” God exercising no compulsion in regard to him; and [by the expression] “not expedient” pointing out that we “should not use our liberty as a cloak of maliciousness,” (1Pe_2:16) for this is not expedient. And again he says, “Speak ye every man truth with his neighbour.” (Eph_4:25) And, “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor scurrility, which are not convenient, but rather giving of thanks.” (Eph_4:29) And, “For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord; walk honestly as children of the light, not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in anger and jealousy. And such were some of you; but ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified in the name of our Lord.” (1Co_6:11) If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things, and to abstain from others? But because man is possessed of free will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free will, in whose likeness man was created, advice is always given to him to keep fast the good, which thing is done by means of obedience to God.

5. And not merely in works, but also in faith, has God preserved the will of man free and under his own control, saying, “According to thy faith be it unto thee;” (Mat_9:29) thus showing that there is a faith specially belonging to man, since he has an opinion specially his own. And again, “All things are possible to him that believeth;” (Mat_9:23) and, “Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee.” (Mat_8:13) Now all such expressions demonstrate that man is in his own power with respect to faith. And for this reason, “he that believeth in Him has eternal life while he who believeth not the Son hath not eternal life, but the wrath of God shall remain upon him.” (Joh_3:36) In the same manner therefore the Lord, both showing His own goodness, and indicating that man is in his own free will and his own power, said to Jerusalem, “How often have I wished to gather thy children together, as a hen [gathereth] her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Wherefore your house shall be left unto you desolate.” (Mat_23:37, Mat_23:38)
 
Upvote 0

FutureAndAHope

Just me
Site Supporter
Aug 30, 2008
6,362
2,912
Australia
Visit site
✟736,252.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If the will of the sinful man cannot usurp Gpd's will or overcome the limitations of creation and has been adversely affected by sin then is it free; is it completely without control, unfettered, and able to do all he wants?


Yes or No?

But you suggest that God's will is to purposefully hide salvation for a group of people just because He desires to. But I suggest that that is wrong thinking. The Bible is clear in many places that God desires all to be saved. Below I quote some of the scriptures that show that all means both Jew and Gentile, all people of the world.

For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. (NKJV, 1 Timothy 4:10)

And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. (NKJV, 1John 2:2)


The fact is Jesus’s ransom was given for all men, for there is not one that God does not love. For God is love.

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, (NKJV, 1Timothy 2:3-6)

If God's will is to give all people a chance at life. It is not usurping God's will to suggest that fact. So your argument falls flat. Although man's desires are toward sin, it does not mean he can not repent. He can will to change. When exposed to God's word the man who wills to change will be saved.

As I have mentioned Paul never said the will of man was broken, only his ability to avoid sin.

For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. (NKJV 7:14-22)

So I have to answer No, you are not correct to say that.

So No.
 
Upvote 0

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
4,972
2,886
66
Denver CO
✟203,738.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
From Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202] Against Heresies - Book 4 Ch 37:

1. This expression [of our Lord], “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,” (Mat 23:37) set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness. (Rev. Rambaut W. H. 1867, Against Heresies - Book 4 Ch 37)
For what it's worth, while I think Irenaeus might inadvertently be conveying that we are being sifted or refined, I tend to believe that we come to learn why we need to trust God, through trial and error. I also think it's wrong to articulate obedience to God as a voluntary action made apart from God, see Romans 6:17, 1 Corinthians 12:3. As creatures I think we take God for granted and we only learn sincere thankfulness in valuing His Spiritual wisdom through losing it and subsequently seeing what we become without it (See the prodigal son).

I therefore find Irenaeus' articulation problematic because GOD IS LOVE. Wherefore, the assertion of a voluntary will as being applicable in obedience to God and described as being without any compulsion coming from God, is inconsistent with the reality of the compassion that I experience towards others and from others, which also compels me to believe that my caring about others is only due to His Spirit and not a product of my volition. Nor is such a claim of voluntary obedience consistent with a healthy conscience bestowed by my Maker to cause me to experience guilt when I do wrong. And finally, I don't believe the fear of God in the form of chastisement or recompense for doing wrong can be dismissed as not coercive. To sum up, it's irrelevant that we have a choice/option of action in a moral/immoral paradigm. I believe the correct articulation is that the Spirit of God compels us to think and care about how our actions affect others, while the flesh compels us only to think and care about our own carnal comfort/discomfort. And this is how there can be two contrary wills working against each other within me.

This is Matthew 23:37, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

I submit that these people in Jerusalem who kill the prophets and who also eventually crucified the Lord Jesus when he only sought to care for their children as his own, are clearly ignorant/blind/deceived. Being either ignorant, or blind or deceived is conducive with spiritual darkness occupying the soul and does not qualify as human liberty (free will) in my view.

Let us understand that The Eternal Power is Eternally True, and that when it comes to deception every lie only usurps from the Truth because a lie exists only to undermine the truth. Therefore, a lie has no power of its own, the power of a lie comes through usurping from the Truth, and it is a corrupting power. This is why I find the articulation below problematic where Irenaeus says:

"And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves."

Respectfully, that's not how I see it. Sin is not rational. For one thing, we are made in God's image so to even ponder that there is a preferable alternative choice to obeying God is to construct a false image of god that will corrupt the soul. I don't particularly like the phrase to "yielded obedience". I'm not saying it's incorrect, it's just that to me it denotes a carnal mindset in reluctance to obey, and I also note that it is contradictory to a "voluntary obedience".

Look, I think doing good should simply be counted as something good to do and not because I could have decided/chosen to not count it that way. The intention with most free will theology is to exhort people to act responsibly as a matter of choice/decision, when in reality it's love in the heart that causes us to care how our actions affect others. Why not just say God works in us to will to do good? That way we have need to acknowledge God's Spirit at work in us. Also, it is known that God exalts those who humble themselves and humbles those who exalt themselves, so I submit that humility is preserved by The Holy Spirit Who also convicts us of sin and also revealing when we're hypocritical and proud. To me, acknowledging God's Word as the virtue/power of patience within us to persevere in love, is tantamount to knowing that our hope is in Him rather than in ourselves.

Did God give us a power of choice to disobey Him, or did He just let us go find out He was right all along, and we were wrong to doubt Him? We are made in God's image. To ponder that there is a preferable alternative to God is to construct a false image that will corrupt the soul. Moreover, given that the Moral/immoral choice is always to either obey what has always been true trustworthy and moral, or obey what is untrue, untrustworthy, and immoral, then any so called "power" to choose to disobey God, Whose Word within us is our only source of wisdom, would not qualify as a power of rational choice placed in the creature by God. It would qualify as a weakness to be deceived into a servitude to sin through the vainglory of pride.

I believe that God is the Pure Light without any darkness, and there can be no sin in God. When God breathed into the dirt His Spirit, the man formed from the dirt became a living soul and God's Spirit which was without sin was housed in this vessel formed from the earth, 2 Corinthians 4:7. I'm saying that there was a time before sin had entered into the soul of mankind, and that mankind was formed free from sin. So, here's a good question to ponder:

Wouldn't Adam and Eve had to first possess the knowledge of good and evil to become a free agent choosing between sin and God?

Because, if so, then God did not make Mankind to be a free agent from the beginning as Irenaeus seems to be suggesting, because God had expressly told the man not to partake of that knowledge. And contrary to that, it would be the serpent (the devil and father of sin) who deceived the woman by introducing a choice to disobey God as valid, because he wanted her to eat and become a "free agent" (having the disability of sin). For we know that scripture teaches that sin entered into all men because of one Mans' disobedience and that is how we now find ourselves caught between two Masters.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Josheb

Christian
Site Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
2,197
837
NoVa
✟166,989.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Then I live you to your own testimony.


Everyone can see you acknowledge the limitations but deny the limitations are limiting. That is irrational. I'm going to bookmark this thread so I can use it in the future anytime we trade posts because it will prove to everyone who reads it the self-contradictory views you hold. It proves you're not genuinely interested in what scripture explicitly states any more than you are in logic/reason. In a couple of places, it proves you openly deny the facts and truth of God's word (like sin not enslaving sinners' wills = Post 39). It proves you prefer men's views over scripture and use those men's views selectively and with intentional bias (prejudice) to criticize others - others who do read scripture, accept it, and believe it, exactly as written. The thread proves an unwillingness and an inability to stay on topic (in your own op!!!) and address op-relevant content in a timely manner (a lot still sits in this thread ignored by you). The thread shows a disregard for a helping hand. The thread also proves - by your own admission - you do not know the ECFs as you should, and in that ignorance presume not only to criticize others but to teach others what and how to believe.

That was not my intent when I asked the first question and this outcome surprises me, but I am glad you put it all on record for all to see.

Sinful many has liberty to choose and act within the limitations of God's will, the confines of creation, and the adverse effects of sin. There is, therefore, no such thing, scripturally or logically, as "free will salvation," and Irenaeus never taught any such position. You were saved by God, not your own sinful will.

1 Corinthians 2:14
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

"Wherefore also He drove him out of Paradise, and removed him far from the tree of life, not because He envied him the tree of life, as some venture to assert, but because He pitied him, [and did not desire] that he should continue a sinner for ever, nor that the sin which surrounded him should be immortal, and evil interminable and irremediable. But He set a bound to his [state of] sin, by interposing death, and thus causing sin to cease, Romans 6:7 putting an end to it by the dissolution of the flesh, which should take place in the earth, so that man, ceasing at length to live to sin, and dying to it, might begin to live to God." (Against Heresies; Book III)

"No doubt, if any one is unwilling to follow the Gospel itself, it is in his power [to reject it], but it is not expedient. For it is in man's power to disobey God, and to forfeit what is good; but [such conduct] brings no small amount of injury and mischief. And on this account Paul says, 'All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient;' referring both to the liberty of man, in which respect 'all things are lawful,' God exercising no compulsion in regard to him; and [by the expression] "not expedient" pointing out that we "should not use our liberty as a cloak of maliciousness, for this is not expedient................ The light does never enslave any one by necessity; nor, again, does God exercise compulsion upon any one unwilling to accept the exercise of His skill. Those persons, therefore, who have apostatized from the light given by the Father, and transgressed the law of liberty, have done so through their own fault, since they have been created free agents, and possessed of power over themselves." (Against Heresies; Book IV)​

If God had not intervened sinful man would be bound and would continue a sinner forever. Disobedience brings injury and mischief, and those who do that are apostatized. According to Irenaeus, God interposed death to put an end to sin. In other words, apart from Christ, there is no end of the sinner's sin until he dies. He is Not free. When you read Irenaeus don't just look for what he wrote about the original gift of the will's liberty. Pay attention to what he wrote about the effects of sin. When you read commentaries about Irenaeus check the commentators' biases. Irenaeus subscribed to original sin, and he said it was binding, capturing, cause man to forfeit what is good, injured him, and only death would put an end to it. Despite these very blunt statements, commentators often say he denied what we now call Total Depravity (TD). Even Arminius and Wesley subscribed to TD! Irenaeus never said sinful man could come to God unaided. As you read through Irenaeus look for that. Look for that one single, simply statement declaring sinful man does not need God's help for salvation. When you do not find it acknowledge it and build your soteriology upon all else that he did say.



See you in the next thread where I hope you will post better and show some evidence of growth.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0