Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

[Magenta]

Jesus was the Word and He accomplished what He set out to do.

And His words reveal truth and people can accept or reject.

Please stop with these proof texts, seriously,

You reject what Jesus said. As already explained (see post 2967), but, yes, we know you hate the truth.

“Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone. Mark ch. 10 verse 18 and Luke ch. 18 verse 19 “There is only One who is good.” Matthew ch. 19 verse 17b. There is no one who does good. fr Psalm ch. 14. There is no one righteous, not even one. Romans ch. 3 verse 10. They are corrupt; their ways are vile. There is no one who does good. All have turned away, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one. fr Psalm ch. 53 verses 1-3. Surely there is no righteous man on earth who does good and never sins. Ecclesiastes ch. 7 verse 20. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

 

[Cameron143]

Jesus was the Word and He accomplished what He set out to do.

And His words reveal truth and people can accept or reject.

Please stop with these proof texts, seriously,

Wow.
So...what can we garner from Isaiah 55?
First we can establish that God is active in the affairs of men and employs His word in this activity.
Second, God says that He is the ultimate determiner of what His word accomplishes.

 

[Rufus]

I don't see your point. I have stated grace is God's working policy. You're the one who seems to have trouble working out the power of grace. It can raise a man from the dead but can't set a human will free even for a moment in time? So God can only lift the big weights but can't lift the little ones?



Do you actually apply any reasoning to what people say? Is God chaotic or free? Freedom produces order. It was Adam going outside the boundaries of his freedom that got us all in this mess.

Clearly you don't understand my tagline. I understand very well God's "power of grace". But FWers do NOT understand this power of grace the way you wrote it above. Look at Mr. Studier's recent post wherein he essentially wrote that men are FREE to accept or reject not the only the gospel but the FREEDOM that Christ offers. He believes this "freedom" is given to a sinner AFTER the sinner repents and believes the gospel -- not before as you just wrote. So, which is it: Before so that it sets men free from the power of their sin nature thereby empowering them to make righteous choices...OR is after so that sinners are free (by their own will) to choose beforehand before they're set free by Christ?

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

Grow up.

who is this directed to?

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

Let's examine Isaiah 55. God states that when His word goes forth, it accomplishes His purpose in sending it.

First question: who is determining the results of what is accomplished?

or is it what is gods will in accomplishing it?

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

Isaiah 55 verses 10-11

so this means it pleases God to cast to death the wicked?

 

[Rufus]

That's the favored view of most traditions.

But the discussions re: Jesus not being able to sin vs. being able not to sin as more heavily debated and due to how long it's been debated, are very customarily framed in the old Latin terminology and in part end up dealing with whether or not Jesus was exemplifying us or more so Adam.

My logic is not nearly what you say it is. So, I'm relaxing a bit in responding to much of what you say that is really not worthy of response.

I agree with @GWH and a few others who are dealing less with your rhetoric now. It's circular and endless.

In the old discussions and debates are some fascinating and much deeper truths to ponder. When we bring them back to Scriptures we ultimately end up in these surface-level arguments over this or that tradition's interpretation of things that are not really that interesting.

For example, we believe, or we don't. IF we believe, then most of the NC is written for us to explain what we are involved in and what is required of us. And contrary to what some have said in these threads including this one, most conditional-IF clauses do require contemplation, decisions and choices, as do the hundreds of commands in the NC Writings.

IOW, whether you like it or not, human volition is a big deal, and this ties back to the ages old discussions re: the first and second Adams.

Yada, yada, yada. You insist on multiplying words without knowledge! Just answer this question: Will the glorified saints in the eternal New Order have the ability to sin? YES or NO!

 

[studier]

@Cameron143 quote:

Sure it's a crazy place. That was my whole point in the exercise I engaged in yesterday. And @Everlasting-Grace made the same point I was making. It's the reason I don't respond to anything with TULIP, and the reason I started labeling those who use the pejorative. You have constantly attempted to associate me with TULIP and now claim you only want to deal with scripture. I was just showing you how that isn't the case. And you are hardly alone. @Magenta has posted some 60+ scriptures that deal with the estate of the natural fallen man. I haven't seen anyone deal with the scriptures she has shared. So I find the claim that you only want to deal with scripture a little disingenuous.
Grace and peace.

Earlier on I recall simply agreeing with another(s) that your view did seem TULIPish when you denied it. We may have even discussed the isms before and agreed that neither of us particularly care for the whole labeling practice. As time goes on in these threads it's difficult to escape and becomes basic shorthand and an easy way to compare statements to belief systems.

As I said, I'm fine with being labeled now. I'd like any labeling to be backup up with what the labeler understands about my interpretations of actual Scripture and how it compares to the label, but Scripture work is not a high point here.

I put @Magenta on ignore long ago. I'm happy to deal with any Scriptures anyone wants to post and discuss but I'd prefer to deal with simple type vs. all the colorizing. I doubt seriously that some have not dealt with Scriptures she or anyone has proffered. There are limits though to responding to proof-texting single verses especially if that's the process and the one that lists them (not speaking necessarily re: Mag because I don't really know what she's doing now) won't actually do the work to deal with them in context.

Maybe that'll explain the disingenuous opinion you have. And you might want to think about such opinions because I don't recall you beyond maybe once getting close to any in-depth discussions about Scripture.

If you want to maintain your opinion, try posting an actual Scripture and opening a discussion about it. But be prepared to explain how you read and interpret it and why. I see little point now in doing a bunch of detailed work for somebody who's here for the ride and who knows others will throw a bunch of nonsense at or ignore altogether because they can't do the work to actually explain their read.

BTW, I do read posts like these.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

You reject what Jesus said. As already explained (see post 2967), but, yes, we know you hate the truth.

“Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone. Mark ch. 10 verse 18 and Luke ch. 18 verse 19 “There is only One who is good.” Matthew ch. 19 verse 17b. There is no one who does good. fr Psalm ch. 14. There is no one righteous, not even one. Romans ch. 3 verse 10. They are corrupt; their ways are vile. There is no one who does good. All have turned away, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one. fr Psalm ch. 53 verses 1-3. Surely there is no righteous man on earth who does good and never sins. Ecclesiastes ch. 7 verse 20. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

or is it you who is doing this

Can you just post some actual verses without attacking people of rejecting something because they do not agree with you?

was it not you who told someone to grow up?

 

[Rufus]

Thankyou, finally you seem to be understanding what I'm saying.

The difference is you have God saving us in order to save us. He doesn't have to change our nature (ie.human nature). Our human nature is found in our soul, created in the image and likeness of God. He's not looking to change our human nature, to do that would make us something not us. It's why the scriptures refer to us as souls and not spirits. Our souls are being saved by the transforming power of God's word. All souls ought to have the character of Christ but we don't because we were given free will. It's the price of freedom.

The sin nature is in the flesh, a corruption that seeks only to serve self hence, is against the Spirit. Rom.7:23 & Gal.5:17 That corruption cannot abide with God hence we are born with no spiritual capacity (God is Spirit) which, is why we must be born again. But we are not born wicked, we become wicked if there were no grace and truth given (which would never happen because it's not in God's nature to withhold that which is needed) or if grace and truth is rejected. This is the doctrine of total depravity. Apart from grace we are locked into our sin nature which deceives our minds and that keeps us in the dark. Rom.7 God shines light into that darkness with the truth and grace enables a man to function as if (just like Adam originally) he had no sin nature while the Lord presents Him with the truth. In this way who he truly is, a lover of righteousness or a lover of darkness, is revealed. Jn.3:19-21 There are things we have to learn before we are even ready to hear the Gospel. This is why the Spirit is in the world teaching about righteousness, sin and judgment. Jn.16:8 Those who learn from the Father about righteousness, sin and judgement come to the light (drawn like a moth to a flame) and are given to Christ. Jn.6:44-45

There are only two types of people in this world, believers and unbelievers. God meets us with grace and truth to reveal which one we are. There are believers out there who don't know they are believers yet which, is why we continue to preach the Good News.

Then if God is not looking to change our nature, what's the big deal about our glorification? Also, will the glorified saints in the eternal New Order have the ability to sin or not?

 

[Cameron143]

or is it what is gods will in accomplishing it?

Is someone besides God ensuring that His purpose is accomplished? He certainly employs human agency at times, but from the passage it is clear that God is the one who has determined the purpose that is accomplished. Acts 2:23 is a good example. God determined; men did.

 

[Rufus]

What's funny about this is that at my age the Dr's are surprised I'm not on any meds. Also, I've been considering asking you every day whether or not you've taken yours! It's good you were the one to open the door.



I'm just skimming this because I see you very early in that you're making false allegations and using fallacious arguments again.

Re: context, consider these translations. Notice anything?

NET 1 Corinthians 4:7 For who concedes you any superiority? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you received it, why do you boast as though you did not?​

​

ESV 1 Corinthians 4:7 For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?​

​

NAS 1 Corinthians 4:7 For who regards you as superior? And what do you have that you did not receive? But if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?​

Re: the statement concerning receive, see here for the definition that @cv5 initiated. By understanding the word, we both understand we took something and that it made available to us. Your allegations against our understanding are pure fallacy.

You'll have to go through some of the context to see what Paul is dealing with. Some of the above wording draws out a major part of it.

So what did the Corinthians receive and from whom? It seems to me there are far more than a few passages in the bible that expounds on all the various gifts God gives to his elect via his grace. Jn 3:16 for example.

 

[studier]

Yada, yada, yada. You insist on multiplying words without knowledge! Just answer this question: Will the glorified saints in the eternal New Order have the ability to sin? YES or NO!

Or ability not to sin - as I said no ability to sin is the main point of view.

If you want actual discussion post some Scripture and explain your interpretation.

 

[Magenta]

Your the one who keeps pushing it around. I'm just here for the ride.

They need an excuse to keep ignoring the Scriptures given. Perhaps some are fooled by that ploy.

 

[studier]

So what did the Corinthians receive and from whom? It seems to me there are far more than a few passages in the bible that expounds on all the various gifts God gives to his elect via his grace. Jn 3:16 for example.

You tell me. You used the verse.

 

[Magenta]

Did I read that right.. do they just claim they don't mind being labeled after going on and on about being labeled ??? wow so much contradiction and dishonesty from some of these people it's unbelievable

 

[Rufus]

There is no "Reconciliation decree" concerning Eve in Gen 3:15 ... there are no "FACTS of the positive evidence for Eve" in Gen 3:15.

Gen 3:15 is a great and precious promise concerning the Lord Jesus Christ.

That God put enmity between Eve and satan was a necessity because Eve was so easily beguiled in her unfallen state. Adam was not tricked into eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Adam willingly ate and joined Eve, his wife, in her fallen state ... just as Scripture indicates a man should do:

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Adam left his Father ... Adam cleaved to his wife ... Adam became one flesh with his wife.

Adam is a foreshadowing of the Lord Jesus Christ ... Who left His Father in heaven ... was made in the likeness of men ... humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross (Phil 2:7-8).

your claim fails.





You made no "legitimate" "exegetical observation" about Adam ... all you have done is state your claim ... then beat your chest if/when anyone provides Scripture which indicates that maybe there's more to Adam than you allow. Additionally, you've got Eve up on a pedestal which does not withstand even the slightest scrutiny without you throwing a conniption fit.





more re-writing of Scripture by Rufus ... Gen 3:9-10 according to Rufus:

Genesis 3:9-10 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked feared Your impending judgment; and I hid myself.





rolleyes ... talk about an "argument from silence" ... where is chapter and verse which indicates "Adam paid "lip service" to God by donning the coverings".





excuse me??? that you can even consider such an abominable thought is horrid ... but to post in an open forum reveals that it is you who are a "HUGE NOTHINGBURGER".

God's perfect Offering for the sin of Adam and Eve is a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world.

God providing coats of skins for Adam and Eve is a foreshadowing of the garments of salvation ... the robe of righteousness.

Isaiah 61:10 I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.





rolleyes ... more oral dysentery from Rufus.





more argument from silence ... there is no verse which implicitly or explicitly states Eve's "Response of faith". You engage in tactics of which you accuse others. I have provided Scriptural support for each of my assertions all of which has been categorically rejected by you or completely ignored because you have no Scriptural refutation.

However, as stated in previous posts (with Scriptural support), I do believe both Adam and Eve were believers who taught their children in the ways of the Lord as the Lord revealed to them.

You can disagree all the livelong day and continue on in your "argument from silence" about Eve ... with "NO biblical evidence whatsoever to support [she] exercised any faith".

Again, when God put enmity between Eve and satan, He provided caution on her part because she was so easily duped, believed the lie of satan, ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and offered to Adam ... which he ate ... his actions resulted in his being one flesh with his fallen wife.
.

So...since you say there is "no reconciliation decree" in Gen 3:15, then Eve in her state of sin remained at once an enemy of God and an enemy of the devil. Eve hated both good and evil. And in your world, this makes sense.

And I posted the evidence for Eve's faith. She, UNLIKE ADAM, acknowledged and expressed gratitude to God for giving her her firstborn son and then later another son who succeeded Abel. Plus she is called the mother of ALL the living. So, remind me again of all the passages that reveal Adam's faith and spiritual status. Is Adam the daddy of all the living. He must be if God saved him. But then again...why is it that scripture never says anything about Adam? You must think that all the negative press that Adam receives in the Word must be his salvation badge of honor?

 

[Rufus]

You tell me. You used the verse.

I already answered that previously. Pay attention. Answer the question: What did the Corinthians receive and from whom?

 

[Cameron143]

@Cameron143 quote:

Sure it's a crazy place. That was my whole point in the exercise I engaged in yesterday. And @Everlasting-Grace made the same point I was making. It's the reason I don't respond to anything with TULIP, and the reason I started labeling those who use the pejorative. You have constantly attempted to associate me with TULIP and now claim you only want to deal with scripture. I was just showing you how that isn't the case. And you are hardly alone. @Magenta has posted some 60+ scriptures that deal with the estate of the natural fallen man. I haven't seen anyone deal with the scriptures she has shared. So I find the claim that you only want to deal with scripture a little disingenuous.
Grace and peace.

Earlier on I recall simply agreeing with another(s) that your view did seem TULIPish when you denied it. We may have even discussed the isms before and agreed that neither of us particularly care for the whole labeling practice. As time goes on in these threads it's difficult to escape and becomes basic shorthand and an easy way to compare statements to belief systems.

As I said, I'm fine with being labeled now. I'd like any labeling to be backup up with what the labeler understands about my interpretations of actual Scripture and how it compares to the label, but Scripture work is not a high point here.

I put @Magenta on ignore long ago. I'm happy to deal with any Scriptures anyone wants to post and discuss but I'd prefer to deal with simple type vs. all the colorizing. I doubt seriously that some have not dealt with Scriptures she or anyone has proffered. There are limits though to responding to proof-texting single verses especially if that's the process and the one that lists them (not speaking necessarily re: Mag because I don't really know what she's doing now) won't actually do the work to deal with them in context.

Maybe that'll explain the disingenuous opinion you have. And you might want to think about such opinions because I don't recall you beyond maybe once getting close to any in-depth discussions about Scripture.

If you want to maintain your opinion, try posting an actual Scripture and opening a discussion about it. But be prepared to explain how you read and interpret it and why. I see little point now in doing a bunch of detailed work for somebody who's here for the ride and who knows others will throw a bunch of nonsense at or ignore altogether because they can't do the work to actually explain their read.

BTW, I do read posts like these.

You see little need for anything that doesn't agree with you or isn't posted according to your specifications. You still can't have a discussion that doesn't bring in ISMS. I'm sure you study independently, but have a difficult time believing anyone else has this quality in any measure. You say you want to discuss scripture, but are simply unable to do so without labeling other's understanding. If you ever do actually want to discuss ideas, hit me up.

Also, I never said that my understanding isn't in line with the reformed faith. I've actually said that it is. But you have no idea what I actually believe and why. You can't tell me what scripture, other than a couple we discussed, for why I believe as I do. And this is my point all along. My reticence to discuss things with you is that you will always lump what I say into a belief system and dismiss them carte blanche as you and many others have done. What's the point? You aren't truly interested in learning. You aren't truly interested in even learning why I believe as I do.
I ask alot of questions. I begin asking questions to see what someone believes. Later in the discussion I ask questions to see if something in the question has not been considered. Mostly, people just think questions are to put someone on the spot and so rarely answer the question; instead, they give a defense of their position and label your position. Nothing of substance will proceed from such a discussion.

 

[GWH]

lets make sure of this.. we need to examine ourselves.. many times I have seen even I do it and am not even aware of it. because it is a reflex response.

Well I have said several times and say it again, please let me know with specific quotes if/when I cross the line from loving reproof or disagreement to divisive argumentation. Thanks.