Featured The Freedom of the Will

You certainly have a right to your opinion but whether you are correct or not is another question.

You must interpet Romans 7:14-25 and Galatians 5:16 to something else then? You must deny "the law" of indwelling sin within a Christian then? You must deny the words "neither indeed CAN be" in Romans 8:7 concerning the unregenerated or those "in the flesh" without the Spirit then (Rom. 8:8-9). If that is the case then there can be no further discusion with you as it is impossible to reason with a person who takes such a position concerning the nature of the will within the fallen man.

The pre-fallen Adam had no such propensity as he was created "upright" and of Lucifer it is said that sin was "found in him." The propensity to sin only is derived from the "law of" indwelling sin in the fallen nature and from no other source.

Not according to Paul's words in Romans 7:18 concerning his will. Not according to Paul's words in Romans 8:7.

What determines his desires? His will? OR his Holy Nature???? Does the will control the nature or does the nature control the will? Where does your "want to" originate within you? From abstract "will" or from "intent and thoughts of the heart? Where does Jesus say all sin originates in Matthew 15? From the will or from the heart? The will is the slave of the heart not vice versa and this is true in God as much as in man.

Have you read Philippians 2:12 or Romans 7:18? Both refer to the born again man of God and his power of will or choice. Read them.

According to Paul no man has chosen to do good in an unregnerated state in God's estimation or sight - Rom. 3:10-12

According to Christ no lost man chooses "good" indeed, no man is good but God in regard to intrinsic nature - Mt. 19:17 Take a look at the Greek term translated "good" (agathos) and you will see it means intrinsic or inherent good.

 

If I had merely charged your arguments as being irrational, that is one thing. However, if I charged your arguments as being irrational AND provided reasons for that charge, that is quite another thing. You must first deal with my evidence for that charge and show why that is wrong. HOwever, instead of dealing with the evidence presented you jumped to charge me with being ungracious for making the charge and completely ignored the reasons given for that charge.

According to your logic no one could ever charge your position and explanations as being irrational regardless of the evidence as you are not interested in any evidence but only in protecting your ego. Swallow your ego and look at the evidence and provide reasons why my estimation is wrong.

 

Convicted1 can answer for himself but it was not the woman who said that! It is the prophetic Word that said that. That being the case, do you think the Spirit lied or is it possible for God to lie? That is your choice!

The law is called "the righteousness of God" because it is a revelation of His own nature which is holy. The law's standard of righteousness is derived from God's own heart. Love is the principle that sums up all the Law and is the expression of God's own nature for God IS love and God IS holy and they are inseparable. Hence, the law is a revelation of the moral nature of God in principle. Therefore it is erroneous to say has no rules that govern Himself as the law of God is "of God" and reveals how His moral nature operates and gives meaning to the words choliness" and "righteousness." Apart from the revealed law "of God" those words are empty of meaning.

Remember, I am talking about the eternal PRINICPLE that undergirds all of God's revealed commandments not their particular form or application. Do you know the difference? The principle is "love" and love is doing what is right toward self and others. The Father loves the Son and that love is made manifest by his attitude and actions toward the Son and vice versa and the very same principle is applied to men and their relationship with each other and toward God. The law defines sin and righteousness.

 

We are simply going around and around. Let's agree to disagree and go on. If you have some biblical based objections that deductive logic can be based upon then have at it.

 

When evidence is provided to demonstrate the reasonability for the charge that is another story. I did provide evidence - deal with the evidence rather than attempt to derail the thread by this nonsense. Your response and reaction is the norm from those who cannot deal with evidence. You want to make it a personal issue, an emotional charged issue. Please, get back to the OP

 

Back on track! There is no biblical basis to presume that the unregenerated state is placed in some kind of neutralized state and the will is somehow released from its bondage to sin so that it can choose Christ.

Indeed, that ability is given by God to all who are taught by the Father and "every one" so taught does in fact come to Christ in faith - Jn. 6:44-45.

 

So the command to "study to shew yourself approved a workman that needeth not to be ashamed" is no command to you. The exhortation to compare "spiritual things with spiritual" is no command to you? So you believe that the Bible is nothing more than proof texts unrelated to each other and that context means nothing to you. No wonder you cannot understand the scriptures because you go on mere feelings and feelings not tested by scripture lead only to error - Isa. 8:20.

Corrrect! But you do not operate in the Spirt at all times or at least Paul didn't and the Galatians did not as they needed this exhoration (Rom. 7:14-25; Gal. 5:16-25). Again, read Romans 7:18 and you will see that the regenerated man has no "will" power over indwelling sin. The power comes from the indwelling Spirit of God not from your regenerated nature. Paul had a regenerated nature in Romans 7:18 but no will power in either his regenerate or unregenated natures. Go study this and then come back and we can take up the rest of your arguments as they all rest on this misunderstanding of scripture.

 

You are confusing responsibility with ability. Fallen man is responsible for his sin but that does not mean he has ability to overcome it. Romans 7:18 and Gal. 5:16 clearly deny that even the regenerated man has such ability inherent in either his fallen or renewed nature. No reason for Philippians 2:13 if your position were true. Cain was a fallen man faced with his responsibility.

 

Romans 3:21-22; Mt. 7:12; Rom. 12:7-9; there are tons of scripture that teach every statement I made. I made the mistake of assuming you were aware of these basic truths. Sorry! From this point forward I will provide scripture to support every statement.

 

The prevenient grace argument simply has no biblical basis. It is an argument of deductive logic based upon presumptive assumptions that have no Biblical basis. The argument goes like this, If God commands all people to repent and believe then God must logically supply the ability for them to do so or else God is unjust. Hence, they blame sin and its consequences of inabiltity on God.