1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What Makes a Will Free?

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Heavenly Pilgrim, Sep 13, 2007.

  1. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    In my illustration "held down and forced to drink" would be equivalent to "held down and forced to reject the Gospel - forced to reject Christ".

    In that case one could not then hold him accountable to the Eph 2 and Romans 6 "slavery to sin" and the acts committed since no other option was ever available.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  2. NotCountedWise

    NotCountedWise New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    I suspect there is some chicanery going on here. I am troubled by your definition, as it seems crafted to sidestep the Main Query:

    Which came first, the sin...or the sinner? Which is the cause, which is the effect?

    In good Lutheran form, "Yes!" Both are true.

    In Adam's case, his sin caused him to become a sinner. But in the case of Adam's seed, it is reversed: We sin because we are made sinner's by Adam's first sin.

    Next. You claim, "From that point on the effects of sin will taint man." Yet you refuse to face up to what this actually means, as you've twice denied that sin is passed on. (No, I'm not saying that all our actual sins are passed on from generation to generation, but I trust that thought never occurred to you.) Instead you want to say the "sin nature" is passed on. Whatever that is supposed to mean.

    No, seriously. What on earth is that supposed to mean? As I pointed out earlier in the thread, your view is riddled with coincidences and exceptions. You pull out terms and then deny their traditional definitions without further comment. I tried one possibility here...
    ...which you evidently didn't like very much.

    So really. Go into some detail. Any detail at all would be nice.

    But before you do, let's go back to your unfortunate claim that sin isn't passed on. Well, right off the bat. You're right. Actual sin isn't passed on. I don't bear the weight of my father's and grandfather's and great-grandfather's sin (and all the way up the chain, of course). Hardly. Instead, I was actually extracting the meaning of the text from Romans, instead of producing my own separate definition for what "sin being passed on" is supposed to mean.

    Let's look at Romans again. Third time's the charm right?

    For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. (Please recall that Paul says this same thing over like half a dozen times. It's as though he's trying to get some important point across.)

    I suspect you'll agree that Paul isn't talking about the billions of other sins that Adam committed in his life. When he says "the disobedience of one man," it's quite plain that he's referring to the First sin committed in the Garden. (Dare I say "original" sin? Shoo, Augustine, shoo.) That *first* sin, that *original* act of disobedience--*that* is what is passed on. And it most certainly *IS* passed on! That is exactly the meaning of Paul's words. It's not as though Adam disobeyed and then, by magic, we all received some nebulous "sin nature." It isn't as though there's no connection between sin and sinfulness. There is a connection. And that connection is Adam's sin. *How* where the many made sinners? Through their inheritance. We are sinners *because* we've inherited Adam's first disobedience. That, of course, is what "sin nature" is supposed to mean.

    Maybe this is rocket science, after all. Please recall that *you* are the one who wants to know what sin an infant has committed. Now, I gave you a Scriptural answer which also happens to appeal to reason. No, it doesn't make much sense to say than infant is sinning while still in the womb. (Though there is that pesky problem of Psalm 51. "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.")

    And I say, very well, I can concede that there may be a time before which an infant may not have committed a particular actual sin. You may think this represents a contradiction on my part, but that's because you've adopted the principle (which happens to represent a rather blinkered view of Scripture) of "we are sinners because we sin." Well, Scripture actually teaches that the infant is guilty of at least one actual sin, namely, Adam's sin. Thus, we "sin because we are (already) sinners," and that teaching happens to be illustrated rather well by Jesus' assertion that a "bad tree produces only bad fruit."

    Now, the key point here, and this may be where your trouble lies: A fruit bearing tree is not necessarily bearing fruit incessantly, and there is a prior to which the tree won't have produced any fruit. Likewise, there is a time prior to which an infant may not have committed any actual sins. Indeed, I have the sneaking suspicion that Jesus may have understood this. So I can say that an infant is born as a "bad tree," and is thus condemned for being a bad tree. I can also say that an infant may not have produced any fruit, but that in no way suggests that that the infant still won't be condemned for being a bad tree. Obviously, the infant will receive additional condemnation once it starts producing fruit. Please recall that Jesus never says anything about "neutral" trees or "neutral fruit." It's not simply that a bad tree can't produce good fruit. It can only produce bad fruit.

    I hope I've cleared up the analogy for you, even if you still find it "troubling" or whatever. The chief point, as always, is that we are condemned for what we *are* and also for what we *do*.

    There is a difference between stating 1 + 1 = 1 and *demonstrating* that 1 + 1 = 1. Which one do you think would be more interesting? (If you recall, which one did I ask for?)

    Yes, and I provided a passage where David states that he was sinful from conception, so I suggested that you ask *him* instead of me. But since David's idea clearly contradicts your view, I proposed an alternate interpretation.

    =======

    Ah-ha, the other "original error" rears its ugly head.
    Gee whiz, God would never tell us to do something unless we could do it!

    "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

    I suspect this point will also be ignored. :)

    But in case you were wondering, Lutherans have a wonderful little explanation for why God goes around telling us to do all this stuff we can't do. The Word of God, living and active as it is, is the very vehicle *through which* the Holy Spirit regenerates us. Thus, while *we* can't do it, the New Man within us certainly can. After all, a good tree produces only good fruit.

    Holy cow, why are you still trying to force God into that tiny box of human reason? Haven't you ever read Romans 5? Try verse 18 in particular.

    What was the result of one trespass? Condemnation for all men!

    Amazing! Adam screws up once, and we get the blame. Notice: Paul focuses on the point that we are *chiefly* condemned for the ONE trespass. He says nothing of *our* trespasses.

    Stop thinking that every one of us must be presented with the same choice that Adam had. Humanity was presented with one choice. Adam disobeyed for humanity, and now his disobedience IS our disobedience. After Adam made his free will choice, he became a sinner. Ever person born of Adam has *inherited* that choice, and is thus born a sinner, capable of producing only bad fruit. Again, the many died by the trespass of the one man. Paul says nothing about the trespasses of the many. (Although we are obviously condemned for those, too, as Scripture elsewhere makes clear.) You many think it's not fair, but Paul > you.

    A bad tree is not forced to produce bad fruit, so your analogy fails.

    =======

    BobRyan,

    Just because I believe unregenerate man can only produce bad fruit doesn't mean I'm a Calvinist. Sorry.
     
    #42 NotCountedWise, Sep 15, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 15, 2007
  3. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ro 10:14 "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?"

    HP: Should this be our reply to the Apostle? "Silly Paul. Doesn't he know that all have heard the gospel? Preaching is inded foolishness for God has already given and explained the gospel to all!"

    I see your whole position of the gospel message already being universlly revealed to man as falling flat with this one verse.
     
  4. Dan V.

    Dan V. New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    0
    Every sinner is a slave to his sin. In that sense his will is in bondage.

    Every sinner has a will that is free - to choose what he wants most. The sinner will always choose sin. This is what he loves most. Unles God sovereignly regenrates.

    Read Luther's 'Bondage Of The Will'

    Dan V.
     
  5. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0


    HP: I will forewarn the reader that it is nothing short of a primer on necessitated fatalism. It is a read into the fine art of futility.

    On the second thought, by all means read it. Hopefully by the end of it one might begin to see fatalistic determinism and be able to recognize it regardless of the confusing verbiage others try and envelope the same old error in new sophistic argumentation.
     
  6. Dan V.

    Dan V. New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fatalism eh?

    What teaching have you had on the human will?

    Dan V.
     
  7. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    Does one really need teaching on the human will to understand it?!?
     
  8. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    What about the wicked person who's son asks for bread. Does the wicked person who gives the child a piece of bread instead of a stone sin by doing so?
    If the will is in bondage to sin...it can choose nothing but. This, by definition, is not a choice, as a choice consists of the ability to choose between two or more options. There is no choice.
     
  9. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    Lots of words...but not much said.
     
  10. TCGreek

    TCGreek New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe this has been debunked over and over.
     
  11. NotCountedWise

    NotCountedWise New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Alas! Perhaps it's too much to ask for debate. In a debate forum.

    Non-inclusive list of Scriptures that have been ignored and/or dismissed in favor of "human reason" and/or "man's sense of fairness":

    Romans 5
    Romans 9
    Matthew 7:17-18
    Isaiah 64:6
    Psalm 51:5
    Matthew 5:48

    But I think we can do better. I'll try to come up with some more, later. :thumbs:
     
  12. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    No it hasn't. It was said that every action of the reprobate is sin, which is false.
     
  13. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    Anybody can compile a random list of Scripture yanked out of context, to use as a proof text...that really proves nothing.
     
  14. TCGreek

    TCGreek New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. A wicked person can participate in an objective good deed, but that does not make the person good.

    2. In fact, that is exactly what Jesus is saying by contrasting the wicked doing a good deed with the holy Father.

    3. Paul has already said that there is none righteous and none good (Rom 3:9ff).
     
  15. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    ...and I realize that completely, but it still does not mean the reprobate do nothing but sin, as was stated..."bondage to sin": being able to do nothing but sin.
     
  16. Dan V.

    Dan V. New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    0
    Many like to pluck this passage out of context.

    The wicked unsaved man gives bread (bread being a good thing) to his son - not for and to the glory of God. Pleasing God is not his motive.

    "Those in the flesh can not please God" - Romans 8:8

    This is why Christ characterizes this man as wicked. Everything he does is not for God's glory.

    Dan V.
     
  17. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0


    HP: Now there is a logical piece of advice. Hang onto that bit of God-instilled intuitive wisdom. Let nothing deter you from it. :thumbs:
     
  18. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0

    HP: What has been debunked? How about the part defining choice? Has that ever been debunked? If so, I missed it. Could you help us out with a counter argument to it? Thanks.
     
  19. NotCountedWise

    NotCountedWise New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Matthew 7:17-18. Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.

    Isaiah 64:4. All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

    Romans 8:8-9. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you.

    So either the Spirit lives in you, or you're controlled by the sinful nature. And therefore unable to please God. I suppose that means God must not be pleased when a sinner chooses to accept Jesus into his heart. Actually, that makes sense, since "accepting Jesus into your heart" has to be a bad fruit. Or at least a filthy rag. Funny how these mere technicalities work themselves out, eh?

    I'd add Hebrews 11:6 to the list, but I suspect that all the other passages would (by some unjustified, inexplicable magic) be made subservient to its latter half. Such is the way of things.
     
  20. Dan V.

    Dan V. New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sinning is all the reprobate ever do. It's all they want to do, andthus all they are able to do.

    Romans 8:7 ....Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

    Dan V.
     
Loading...