Is the will of fallen man free?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by TCassidy, Jun 2, 2005.

  1. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,192
    Likes Received:
    1,315
    The bible tells us, through Paul, that the fallen man is in bondage to the law of sin and death, and that only the law of the Spirit of life can free that soul from the law of sin and death.

    If this is true, why do the Arminians keep saying that the will of fallen man is not in bondage to the law of sin and death, but instead, they insist, is free. If the fallen man is already free, what does he need Christ for?

    Do the Arminians deny the very word of God in the book of Romans?
     
  2. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    No! The will of unregenerate man is in bondage to sin.
     
  3. rc

    rc
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes Received:
    0
    TC.....

    That arguement was used at the Council of Carthage to condemn Pelegius.

    "If I ought, I can" Pelegius...

    Good point.
     
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Details "details" will there come a day when Calvinists notice them??

    The ARminian position is that while all are born in sin - ALL are DRAWN supernaturally and that DRAWING surely ENABLES the choice (supernaturally enables) that depravity DISABLES>

    Even Calvinists are known on this board to "admit" that this Drawing of God ENABLES the choice that depravity DISABLES.

    Continually circling back to say "but I thought that sinful man was depraved as we see in Romans 3" only starts the conversation "over again" at the same point that both AGREE.

    NEXT we need to get Calvinists to either "consistently AGREE" or state that they dissagree with the teaching that the DRAWING of God ENABLES that which depravity DISABLES in terms of "choice".

    So -- instead of backing up again - why not step forward?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  5. whatever

    whatever
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob,

    It is regeneration that enables the choice that depravity disables. If by "drawing" you mean regeneration then we agree. Otherwise we disagree. I hope this is plain enough.
     
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Almost every Calvinist I have ever seen post here - "Claims" that the "DRAWING" of God accomplishes all that they needed (regeneration, enabling choice etc...).

    Now the post above seems to want to pretend that "no such confession" was ever made about the DRAWING of God that FIRST DRAWS the sinful depraved soul as the FIRST cause.

    Stepping back to go in circles does not promote the Calvinist position.

    All agree that the DRAWING enables - but Calvinists "suppose" that this drawing ALSO implies/includes REGENERATION prior to choice - an assumption on the Calvinist's part that is without support in scripture.

    The Arminian POV demands that we inject LESS outside bias into the term than Calvinism "needs". The Arminian model of exegesis allows us to let the text remain as is - so that the supernatural drawing DOES DRAW but does not CHANGE the NATURE - it only DRAWS and does so in a way that the person is REALLY drawn not just in some marketing doublespeak vaccuous or vapid fashion.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  7. whatever

    whatever
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Apparently I wasn't clear enough. I give up.

    If I ever respond to one of your posts again please remind me that I'm not supposed to.

    [​IMG]
     
  8. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,192
    Likes Received:
    1,315
    I discovered that a long time ago. Kind of like talking to a wall, isn't it? :D :D :D
     
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Wonderful two non-responses in a row from two different Calvinists!!

    Is there "ever" a point where Calvinists confront a hard question with a substantive response??

    Nope! Non-responses and whining seems to be all they have. And yet - so willing to do it!!

    Still I find it amazing that a single group would come back with that same thing time and time again.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  10. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    You haven't asked many hard questions, Bob. Most of your questions are the result of an imagination not submitted to the revelation of God. Most of your questions are answered by simple appeals to Scripture. If you would submit your theology and thinking to God's word, you would find it very easy to come to correct answers about these matters. You are trying to stir up a hornet's nest, but without the benefit of hornets. There is neither smoke nor fire in your questions. We have given substantive responses many times. In fact, I have answered your question here for more than two years. You have no excuse to keep asking it. The answer will not change. Your understanding and belief needs to change, however.
     
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    My mistake. I stand corrected.

    The posts above were in response to the Calvinist post below (on another thread as it turns out) and Whatever's response above that seems to so fully debunk the "start-over" tactic that RC is using below.


    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1463/4.html#000054

    AND now we have Whatever who posts above --

    I was posting in frustration that RC was challenging the very thing that Whatever admits and that previous Calvinists have confessed to --

    Calvinism "needs" to insert "regeneration" into the DRAWING of God - so that mankind can act -- ARminianism does not.

    In the Arminian Model God is fully capable of supernaturally providing the ABILITY to act and CHOOSE without ALSO having to REGENERATE the lost BEFORE they are converted or decide to submit to Christ.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  12. whatever

    whatever
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Everybody notice what Bob is trying to do? He's taking what RC said, that Bob's idea of "drawing" is not in the Bible, and what I said, that Bob's idea of "drawing" is incomplete, and tried to make it sound like RC and I disagree. Typical.
     
  13. rc

    rc
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you look at my post, I made a mistake, stating that I forgot to put enables "ALL" assuming that you where going to make the obvious mistake of saying that God enables all because He DRAWS all.... which is NOT what the text in John 6 says...

    Though you say the Arminian model states that God is capable of giving ability to choose before regeneration, there is no Biblical support for the model... Proper arching of John 6 does not allow for God's enabling everybody, in fact it argues AGAINST Bod's model. That's why I was asking Him where does it say where God enables ALL... To add emphasis to a statement in the Hebrew you can repeat it ... or change the protasis and the apodosis around to make it stand out... The protasis is "unless the father draws him"... apodosis is "no man CAN come to me".

    Bob's model implies that God draws ALL men thus men have the ability to choose Christ. With JUST 6.44(a,b) not (c) out of context, I can agree with him. The problem is context. ALL that the FATHER gives me WILL come to me (He doesn't say "Has the choice to come to me).. AND RAISE IT ON THE LAST DAY...

    Those are the same people He's talking about in 44. NO man CAN come to me unless THE FATHER draws HIM. And will RAISE HIM UP ON THE LAST DAY!

    The reason why Calvinist understand regeneration prior to belief is because this text does NOT allow for the enablement of everyone but to the particular.

    Use the negeative, If All do not come to Christ (unless you are a universalist) then God didn't GIVE them to Christ, Since all that were given to Christ will be raised and ALL that God Draws will be raised (the same lot) God does not DRAW ALL MEN. If He doesn't draw all men, He doesn't ENABLE all men.

    There is no middle ground where you CAN be DRAWN BUT choose not to come. Since there is a definite arch between those drawn (him) and those(him)who are raised in the last day, you would be forced in believing that there is a lot who are drawn but choose not to come to Christ, but will BE LIFTED UP with Him !! Do you believe that? That there are some people drawn by God that reject Christ and still will be going to heaven? .... Don't think so.

    [ June 03, 2005, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: rc ]
     
  14. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, Cassidy, Arminiamns do NOT deny any Scripture, but have a better understanding of what it teaches.

    Your OP is faulty, because you are writing from the position of a Calvinist, and ask the questions based on your theological bias, and not really by what Scripture teaches.

    If the human will is in "bondage" as you put it, then what is the point of Jesus appealing to this "will" in man, as though it were free to make a decision to either accept or reject what He says? If you Calvinists spent more time in reading the Bible with an open mind, and are ready to learn from the Holy Spirit, and admit when they are wrong, they might learn a ting or two. Read and learn.

    Jesus clearly knew that the will of all humans are free to chose to either accept or reject the Gospel of salvation. He says in Matthew 23:37;

    "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!"

    Can you people read what Jesus says? "BUT YOU WERE NOT WILLING" If their wills were in bondage, this verse is meaningless. Likewise He says in John 5:39-40;

    ""You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life"

    "BUT YOU ARE UNWILLING TO COME TO ME" For what? "IN ORDER THAT YOU MAY HAVE LIFE"

    If this is not a rejection of the Gospel, then I don't know what this is.

    Likewise Paul and Barnabas clearly say;

    "Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles" (Acts 13:46)

    Can you read here? "reject it" What? Clearly the Gospel that brings Salvation. Read on, The Jews, NOT GOD, "CONSIDERED THEMSELVES UNWORTHY OF ETERNAL LIFE"

    So, it is very clear to the honest mind, that is not twisted by theological nonsensem, that Jesus Himself believed and taught that mans will is FREE. Do Calvinists reject what Jesus and Paul say?
     
  15. Wes Outwest

    Wes Outwest
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    AS the created man that we are, yes the will of man is free in accordance with God's created man.
     
  16. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,192
    Likes Received:
    1,315
    LOL! All you have done is proven that the will of the unsaved IS in bondage. They did not come because their will was in bondage to the law of sin and death! Thanks for proving my point for me.

    This is too easy. Like taking candy from a baby or shooting fish in a barrel. :D :D :D
     
  17. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't be so foolish, Cassidy. This does NOT in any way teach that the will of man is in bondage as you suppose. It makes no sense for Christ to say what He does, as He should have known about the will of man!
     
  18. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,192
    Likes Received:
    1,315
    So, according to you, Paul is a liar and Christ doesn't understand the law of sin and death.

    Yeah. Right! LOL!
     
  19. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, according to you, Paul is a liar and Christ doesn't understand the law of sin and death.

    Yeah. Right! LOL!
    </font>[/QUOTE]No, Cassidy, its you and the Calvinists who believe the nonsense that you do, who are in error.

    I get the distinct impression that you don't really understand what "Free Will" is. Do you? I see the defination as given in the Oxford English Dictionary being the best:

    "The power or directing our actions without contsraint by necessity or fate"; "Unconstrained choice (to do or act)"

    "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark 16:16)

    Here is a very clear text of Jesus Himself showing that man has a "free will". Note the choice, "believe" or "believe not"; and the result of our choice: "saved", or "damned". Jesus does not say that they "could not" believe, but that they "would not". Herein is the difference between what Scripture teaches, and what Calvinism teaches. And the two are not in agreement.

    As I showed from the examples earlier, Jesus says: "you would not", that is, "you are unwilling". How can this be said that their wills are in bondage then, as it is clear that they "chose" not to accept Jesus. Did you not read what it says in the Acts account, where it clearly states that God does not consider anyone unworthy of eternal life, but they, of their own free will, choose to reject the Gospel. Show me ONE Scripture, where it says that peopel "could not" be saved, rather than "would not".
     
  20. Wes Outwest

    Wes Outwest
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    For that purpose, God sent his only begotten Son to ATONE for SIN and thus set men free from its bondage, and that happened 2000 years ago, and we are still free from that bondage as believers in the Christ!

    Leave the baby alone, ya big bully! [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...