What Makes a Will Free?

1. You claim Scripture to support your view; What Scripture do you have in mind?

2. Therefore, according to your position, Man is born with a clean, neutral slate. Where is the Scripture for this?

 

This is one area where I do not agree fully with HP's position.

In the quote from Romans 3 above we have part of the answer - in the rest of Romans 3 where we are told "NNE seeks after God - no not even one" we have to conclude for something other than "everyone can stop sinning without God but it just so happens that no one does".

In Romans 8 we are told that the mind of the sinful nature "does not please God neither indeed CAN it".

However I DO agree with HP on "the fact of Free Will" - but I claim it is divinely and supernaturally created by the "DRAWING OF ALL unto Me" John 12:32 and by the LIGHT of Christ "Who coming into the World ENLIGHTENS EVERY MAN" John 1. That ENABLING does not enable sinless living - it ENABLES the choice for Christ resulting in the new birth - which includes the gift of the Holy Spirit IN YOU enabling you to "walk even as Christ walked" 1John 2.

HP I believe claims that it is divinely and supernaturally created at the moment of birth and so is an "ability" of human nature itself.

in Christ,

Bob

 

HP.

Thanks for answering the questions. I am seeking to understand you position completely. If you would be so kind as to indulge just a couple more questions:

1. Do you believe man and God must (or can) cooperate to achieve/effect man's salvation?

2. Do you believe that man can make the first move toward God? In other words, does man have the ability to intiate belief in God?

3. Is man completely ruined by sin or is he only tainted or "wounded" ?

 

Why are you evading the question? Regardless whether you personally have used the word "dead" in the last couple of days, your side has on numerous occasions used the corpse argument to prove man cannot choose anything unless regenerated. I hear "dead is dead" plenty of times. If this is true...then a corpse cannot also be in bondage to anything, no? You stated our wills are in bondage to sin. I asked how a corpse can be in bondage to anything. Kindly answer the question, or at least state you will not answer it. I'm trying to understand the concept of man being unable to come to Christ unless regenerated...but even then, unregenerated man is in bondage to anything let alone sin.

 

Their main problem here, webdog, is that they are avoiding the biblical definition of dead, which is NOT 'unconscious', but, rather, separated. Physical death is separation from the body and spiritual death is separation from the Lord God. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any state of unconsciousness. If it did, hell would have no meaning whatsoever!

In Isaiah 1, God is talking to the unsaved inviting them to 'come and reason' with him. One does not ask an unconscious person to come and reason!

Those who are dead spiritually are separated from the life which is in God. They are perfectly capable of responding and choosing, just as the Bible says. And, like all people, God has given them the ability to respond and choose according to their own wills. In Genesis 9 God told Noah the TENDENCY or INCLINATION of every adult human heart (or from youth on) is toward evil. He never said that a man cannot choose other than that inclination. In fact, every law made by man for other men is made on the presupposition that, regardless of inclination, a man can choose to obey.

God Himself is not willing that one should be separated from Him. But, nevertheless, in His sovereignty, He has given them the choice regarding their eternal destinies. He is big enough for that.

 

It's always important to get at the "original error" in these cases, which appears to be this point:

In other words, God is incapable of holding man accountable for sins that man was bound to commit. What this is really saying is that we cannot be held accountable for the free will sin of Adam, which has corrupted us. This is a man-made dogma. Without it, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. (Indeed, it can't stand up under the mighty breath of God's Word, but that's for later.)

Consider some of the strange and inconsistent "exceptions" and "coincides" promoted by this view:

It's unimportant that Cain was conceived after the Fall.

Circumcision is in no way related to the fact that sin is passed through the man's seed.

The virgin birth wasn't necessary to avoid man's corrupt seed.

Man is born morally neutral, yet has "coincidentally" always chosen evil. (More on this later.)

Infants either haven't committed any actual sins and are thus blameless before God (ignoring, of course, "all have sinned") or aren't "accountable" because they evidently don't have have enough intellectual capacity to make fair choices.

How does "morally neutral" translate into "powerless," "ungodly," "sinner," or "enemy?" I do wonder how man can be "powerless" if it is possible for him to avoid sin.

Fortunately, it has been conceded that it is theoretically possible for man to save himself by completely avoiding sin. Let us build on that. Notice, going back to an earlier statement, that man (for some reason) always chooses evil. This can best be understood in the sense that man is bound to commit at least one sin in his life. And one sin, after all, will damn you.

Thus fact that neutral man doesn't need salvation by grace alone can therefore hardly be denied: Proponents of the morally neutral man cannot claim that *all* of man's actions are sinful, because of course that would defeat the entire purpose their position. Therefore the reality of the matter for Decision Theologians is that God is pleased with some (most?) of what you've done on your own. Sure, you can't *completely* avoid sin. No one is saying that. Nor is anyone saying that your good works can "balance out" or "make up for" your sin. Nevertheless, you *have* done works that were *not* laid upon Jesus at the cross.

Thus, I bet if you go out to five or six sigma (on the population bell curve), you'll find people who only needed Jesus to pay for 5% of their works. (95% of their works were good.) If you drop down to two sigma, maybe you'll find people who need atonement for 50% - 70% of their works. So they need Jesus a bit more. And on it goes. Sure, really bad people will pretty much need Jesus the whole way, but I bet even Hitler did a least one righteous deed. Thus, the claim that man is morally neutral turns "salvation by grace alone" into nothing more than man needing God to fix those potentially few mistakes that he's made. (As opposed to man being able to fix them himself.) In other words, man can avoid (or at least minimize) the need to turn to God, through his obedience and good works. What's the solution to sin? Stop sinning. That way you won't have to repent anymore. This is commonly known as "works righteousness." And when papists commit this error, Decision Theologians claim they they are deniers salvation by grace alone. This might be considered hypocritical.

Back to the "original error."

This against:

Conclusion? Repent of the evil notion that God somehow can't hold us all accountable for the sin of Adam that has "unfairly" corrupted us. He can and does. It's not necessary for the Fall to be continually repeated by every person in order for that person to bear full responsibility for sin.

Indeed, according to Paul, the *fact* that God does hold us accountable for the one "original sin" is the *basis* for why God allows the one Son of Man to redeem us all. Thus, if one rejects that Adam's sin resulted in our condemnation, there is a an obvious corollary: Christ's death doesn't result in our righteousness. Thus, if you ignore the condemnation brought on you by Adam's original sin (and instead presume you are condemned because of those potentially few mistakes you've made), you cannot expect Jesus to atone for those mistakes and cover them with His Righteousness.

Here's another nail in the coffin of Decision theology.

Repent, Decision Theologians, you who claim that God can only blame those who have the ability to make some kind of "moral choice." Repent of questioning God, for he does blame you for the "original" sin Adam freely chose to commit; that choice was passed on to you. Repent, you who claim that salvation depends on man's "desire" or "effort" or "choice" instead of solely upon God's mercy. You cannot make a choice, Adam chose for you. Repent! Discard all your sinful, fallen assumptions. Stop thinking that salvation depends on your decision. Turn to Christ ALONE, lay *ALL* your sins at his feet (meaning those good works that you think aren't sins, like your "decision") and ask forgiveness. He will surely grant it. Then open your Bibles and start reading.

 

This is exactly true...we are NOT held accountable for Adam's sin. We are held accountable for OUR sin.

Please tell us what sin an infant has committed? The Scripture "all have sinned" is past tense, btw. This would mean an infant would have had to commit some sin in the past in the womb. What was that sin?

You cannot build on that, because all men have a sin nature. In the same way an infant will talk, stand and walk, feed themselves (all part of the human nature) they will also sin.

Let's apply this Scripture the way you are:

Because of Adam = all guilty of Adam's sin
Because of Christ = all made righteous by Christ's death.

Either your application of this verse is wrong...or you espouse universalism.

You may want to add where the Scripture is located for our readers. At any rate, that is not speaking of individual salvation in it's correct context.

This borders on calling out the salvation of those who do not agree with augustinian original sin...a violation of BB rules.

Repent of your self righteousness!

 

1. Calvinists do not equate being dead in sin to a corpse. If you know of such a quote used by the Calvinist, then present it, and I'll apologize for not knowing this.

2. But to equate "dead in sin" with a "corpse" is not a postion that I am willing to argue from.

 

1. Now, I like your definition of death, Separation, which is biblical.

2. How can man on his own, who is separated from God by his sins, return to God and thereby remove the Separation.

3. God was addressing his covenant people Israel not the unsaved.

4. Paul says that in such a state, man has turned away from God, does not seek God and there is no fear of God in him (Rom 3:9-20).

 

"Through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners." Adam's sin IS our sin. This is not rocket science, man!

Furthermore, "Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" Who are you to tell God why he holds us accountable? "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." Who is God that he should have to submit to mere human reason?

Why don't you ask David? "In sin did my mother conceive me." Perhaps she was an adulteress, eh?

I'm amazed that you can talk about a "sin nature" without understanding what that means. Yes, we are born with a sinful nature. This is the sin of Adam, which he passed on to us. This is what Christ speaks of when he says, "A corrupt tree bringeth forth only evil fruit." Adam chose corruption, and so we are born corrupt, the products of his free choice. Whether we produce much evil fruit or only a little, or whether we haven't actually produced any fruit yet at all (infants), we are all equally corrupt.

I just don't understand how you can claim to affirm a "sin nature" which somehow predestines an infant to commit actual sins, while simultaneously denying that there is anything sinful about the infant until the infant actually commits an actual sin. (Whew!) We sin because we are sinners, because of Adam's sin. A bad tree produces bad fruit because it is a bad tree.

Anyway, back to the "original" point: You (and the others) have yet to concede that unregenerate man is capable of nothing but sin. That's what I'm building on. Since you refuse to concede this, it is clear you believe that some of your activities were not paid for by the shed blood of Christ. In which case it is clear that you only need his blood to cover up your *mistakes*. (As opposed to covering *you*.) In other words, man can avoid (or at least minimize) the need to turn to God, through his obedience and good works. This is the very essence of works-righteousness.

Btw, I need Christ's blood to cover *me.* Because *I* am sin.

What application? Again, you amaze me. You have simply paraphrased what the passage says. Please demonstrate that your quarrel is with someone other than Paul. But wait. Universalism? Yes, I uphold a universal atonement. As Paul evidently does. Don't you? Of course, that's not the universalism you're talking about, is it. I don't know why you bring it up, since when Paul says, "so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous" he's not saying, "none will enter hell."

I welcome your attempts to demonstrate that "It" refers to something other than the salvation of the "children of the promise." I wonder, are the "children of the promise" individuals?

You guys keep getting him mixed up with Paul, for some reason.

True. 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.

False. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were NOT made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Hmm. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were NOT made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will NOT be made righteous.

One. I'm sure the Israelites said that to the prophets. Two. By the grace of God alone, I do. Every day. Three. Repent of all your righteous acts (such as a "decision for Christ"), for they are as filthy rags before God. Isaiah 64.

 

Exactly. A sinner, by definition is one who sins. Through the disobedience of one man many were made sinners...as from that point on the affects of sin will taint man.

I'm not talking back to God...I'm talking back to you

I asked what sin the infant has committed...not the parent.

Ummm...it would seem by this post you don't know what a sin nature is. It's not having a person's sin passed on, but the nature (sin nature) passed on.

The above is disturbing. Christ said a corrupt tree bears bad fruit. If an infant is a non fruit bearing tree to start off...how are they guilty of personally bearing bad fruit? Makes no sense.

Collectively in the text, no, it is speaking of the nation of Israel and it's future redemption.

Let me help you out with this. As in Adam all die means in the same manner Adam died (by sinning), we will also die in like manner...by sinning.

 

Stupid double post. What's going on with the BB? This is always happening!

 

You appear to use as your example - the case of Cain and say that even as a lost person God wanted Cain to rule over his sinful nature and do right without the new birth or new-creation benefit. Just telling the lost "do right because it IS right" and the lost should be able to do so?

That is where we differ. My argument is that the lost have only one free-will course of action left to them -- "choose Christ" or not. Once they decide not to choose for Christ they are held in the Eph 2 bondage that Paul says they are in -- also in Romans 6.

In Rev 7 and in 2Thess 2 we see where the Holy Spirit restrains the wicked -- but that is not the same thing as the wicked "choosing righteousness"

in Christ,

Bob

 

This post is wrong in soooo many areas it is hard to know where to begin.

#1. IF God is the one MAKING the Christians on this board INSIST that we have free will -- then why are you telling them to stop??

#2. Scripture IS saying "God CAME to HIS own but HIS OWN received Him NOT" John 1. It is NOT making the argument "God Came to an arbitrarily select FEW and those are the very ones CAUSED to accept salvation".

#3. Scripture says "God is NOT willing for ANY to perish but for ALL to come to repentance" 2Peter 3. It is too late to imagine that Scripture says "God cares that the FEW of Matt 7 come to repentance and the MANY of Matt 7 are not the objects of God's Love".

#4. Scripture says "God gave His Son to be the atoning sacrifice for OUR SINS and not for OUR SINs only but for the SINs of the WHOLE WORLD" 1John 2:2 --

In Adam "All die" which means ALL need a savior - and so praise God ALL have one! Therefore see the free-will argument "WE BEG you on behalf of Christ BE RECONCILED to God" 2Cor 5!

in Christ,

Bob

 

WE are held accountable for each sin. If a drunk driver hits a child in the street - no matter how drunk -- he is guilty because when he takes that drink he is responsible for what he does afterwards.

When the sinner rejects Christ and the Gospel he is accountable for all sins he commits afterwards even though Eph 2 and Romans 6 declares him to be "enslaved" to those sins.

in Christ,

Bob