Depravity and Free Will

Thanks. I really like this part, especially the part I emphasized...

 

As the illustration goes, a buzzard would starve in a wheat field, not because of a lack of food, but because it is not in his nature to eat wheat but to eat meat.

 

Come on now quit trying to fool your own mind. Free will would only be a will that is unfettered if all sinners had/have the option of either receiving spiritual truth or refusing it. We know from Scripture that sinners have this opportunity and choice once they have heard His words of Gospel truth. [John 1:9 and James 3:9] We are created as sinners after the likeness of God not after the likeness of the Devil. We do, however, have a proclivity toward sinning. It's not as bad as the Calvinists portray our bondage. People can receive Christ. [John 1:12]

 

And all that the Holy Spirit regenerates come to Christ.

By the way, we have free choice, not free will. Only Adam and Eve had free will before they fell in the Garden of Eden.

 

Can you show us what God altered in his Created humans prefall vs postfall. After all it is the Calvinist stance that some dominant thing changed in humanity. Since humanity has no power to create or alter what God created, It must be God that altered mankind. So what is different between created man prefall vs post fall, and all of Adam's descendants?

 

Genesis 2:16-17(NASB)
16 The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;
17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

Genesis 3:7(NASB)
7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

Romans 5:16,18(NASB)
16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.
18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

 

That doesn't answer the question!

The eye opening came from consuming the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of good and evil. But that fruit did not alter the created man.

 

Yelsew,

I know that whatever I post you will say that I haven't answered your question, but here goes -

Adam could have resisted temptation and not sinned. Period. His "playing field" was balanced. We can try as hard as we like but we sin. Period. Our "playing field" is unbalanced. If it wasn't, then surely someone among the tens of billions of people(not counting the Son of God) who have lived on this earth would have never sinned or at least have come close to not ever sinning.

Just look around, Yelsew, and you will that this is true. You have much too high of an estimation of yourself and your fellow man.

 

Ken H,

I admire your clever ideas, but I don't expect at this late point in time to have Scriptural backing for your idea that 'we have free choice but not free will.'

Could the Apostle Paul have sabotaged his ministry to the Gentiles? Of course, he had the free will or as you like, 'the free choice' to fall into perhaps a sexual sin, thereby weakening or even ending his ministry. If this had happened God would have elevated another person to take his place. Note that Paul said, 'But I keep my body under, and bring it into subjection, lest that by any means, when I have preached unto others, I myself should be a castaway.' [I Cor. 9:27] The New International Version says, 'No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.' The New Century Version says, 'I treat my body hard and make it my slave so that I myself will not be disqualified after I have preached to others.'

A 'castaway' in the Greek (adokimos) can mean either {unapproved, rejected, worthless, or even reprobate. Select what you think is most fitting.

In no way did the Apostle Paul want to lose in his race toward Heaven; he wanted to be a winner. Anyone can come in last. [Philippians 3:14]

Paul had a free choice and/or a free will; he could have ended up in Heaven but not as the great Apostle Paul to the Gentiles.

The apostle finished his life's course as a victory and winner of the race. He said, 'I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith; Henceforth, there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day; and not to me only, but unto all those also who love His appearing.' [II Timothy 4:7-8]

Paul had some remaining residue of depravity in his person or otherwise he would not have had the ability to fall into sin after his most wonderful conversion and faith in Christ.

 

Ray,

Other than some disagreements over terminology, I agree with your post.

 

When I look around, I see sinners doing good things to other sinners. I see "saints" doing evil things to other siants. I see no great consistancy of "depravity" among men. I see people living lives using the faculties given them through the creation. I see Holy Men living unholy lives. I see down and outers doing good things for their fellow down and outers.

This list could go on and on, but you get the message. All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God. But I find only 8 or 9 really evil people...of course they get around a lot.

The fact that ALL mankind are sinners is ample reason for God to give us His only Son to atone for the sins of ALL mankind. And that one time for all Atonement is not limited to only "the elect" but applies to all mankind.

Salvation on the other hand, is not a once for all situation, but is totally dependent upon each man's response to God. No one can be saved for another, and no one can prevent another from being saved. Yes we can, by our faith or lack of faith cause others to not want what we say we have, but one cannot block another from responding to God.

 

But you do see depravity on the part of everyone, to varying degrees. Man has no place to boast based on his "goodness".

 

Yes, I agree that there are varying degrees of depravity among men and have so stated since my first post on this Calvin vs Armenius Forum. However, I have consistanty argued that mankind is not Totally depraved, and will stand by that!

 

I think you misunderstand the term "total depravity". It is does not mean that anyone acts as badly as they can at all times, or that everyone acts as badly as anyone else acts. It simply means that man's entire being is permeated by the effects of The Fall - mentally and emotionally.

 

That doesn't change anything, I still do not agree with "total depravity", regardless of what spin you put on it. I do not agree with "Total Holiness" except that God is Totally Holy!

 

No spin involved, Yelsew, as you simply refuse to believe the truth, but would rather hold on to what is in essence Campbellite doctrine.

 

OK, we have Calvin, Armenius, and now Campbell, another divisive tool of Satan. All ways to drive Christians into pigeonholes. That means there is no difference between Christianity and secularism.

 

OK, we have Calvin, Armenius, and now Campbell, another divisive tool of Satan. All ways to drive Christians into pigeonholes. That means there is no difference between Christianity and secularism. </font>[/QUOTE]This last statement is true when you fail to realize that the NT church only received believers. The essential problems facing the Reformers, down to Campbell, is the need to devise a human work, namely baptism, to bring folks into a position of salvation, rather than recognizing this for what it was.

Original "Christianity" did not possess these problems because they understood the depravity of man and the sovereignty of God.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

.