Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

[Cameron143]

You obviously believe faith comes by audibly hearing the gospel, and hearing FROM the word of God. But what it actually says is that faith comes by hearing, and hearing BY the word of God. That little word BY identifies the agent performing an action. That agent is the word of God. Let he that hath an ear hear what the Spirit is saying.

 

[studier]

No, I don't actually. You must have been on drugs that day and saw things that weren't in my post.

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 know one thing about 1Cor 4 and it's something you personally HATE: God makes the difference either directly or indirectly through secondary causes. God has given to his elect by His grace (divine POWER) everything they need for salvation (2Pet 1:3-4). All of God's good and perfect gifts come from above (Jas 1:17). This is how Paul could ask that rhetorical question in 1Cor 4:7 by asking WHO makes the difference!? If you think you can make the case that Paul's answer is MAN makes all the difference in the world, then make your case! But just remember, it's ultimately NOT by man's doing that anyone is in Christ Jesus but by God's (1Cor 1:30). But you falsely believe that it's man's will that puts everyone in Christ, don't you? You essentially said earlier that man's will was the ultimate reason which is totally illogical and unbiblical. You assign the final cause in the chain of salvation to man's "freewill" choice, when that particular cause is but one of many secondary causes. The ultimate cause is God (see Rom 8:29-30).

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.

You play word games. What the power is for and results in is where it is directed. And power not manifested is dormant. Unless power is employed, it isn't experienced.

 

[studier]

You play word games. What the power is for and results in is where it is directed. And power not manifested is dormant. Unless power is employed, it isn't experienced.

As I said somewhere, I enjoy seeing what the words are literally. I've explained the basics of what "eis" means. If you like the old English "unto" please enjoy yourself.

Your analogies are wearying. If you'd now like to say His Gospel message power is dormant for those who choose not to believe, I suppose that's fine. Stick your finger in a circuit and see if it's dormant or don't and pretend it's dormant.

 

[GWH]

Oh, another who can't have a discussion without labeling people and consider ideas.

Should I preface my comments with more Pelagian herecy is short for your apparent beliefs. I just want to know the ground rules for engagement with you.

If it quacks like a duck...

There is no need to label my beliefs because I acknowledge MFW:

The viewpoint opposed to TULIP may be termed Moral Free Will (MFW) and described as follows:

M – God’s requirement for salvation (GRFS) is a Moral condition called faith, which is manifested as seeking God’s righteousness or salvation, which in turn presumes sufficient human volition even for sinners to make them morally accountable.

F – God enables all morally accountable souls sufficient Freedom to satisfy GRFS—or not, because His grace is not irresistible, which means sinners are accountable and justly condemned when they do not repent and accept Christ’s atonement for their sins

W – Faith is almost synonymous with Will, but volition focuses on faith as cooperation with God (or not), and cooperating with God by accepting His grace is NOT meritorious or working to earn heaven or salvation by obeying moral laws.

 

[Cameron143]

As I said somewhere, I enjoy seeing what the words are literally. I've explained the basics of what "eis" means. If you like the old English "unto" please enjoy yourself.

Your analogies are wearying. If you'd now like to say His Gospel message power is dormant for those who choose not to believe, I suppose that's fine. Stick your finger in a circuit and see if it's dormant or don't and pretend it's dormant.

Well, you are improving your manners. Guess that's something. Perhaps I have just wearied you. Hopefully you'll be back to full insultery tomorrow. Get some rest.

 

[GWH]

If it quacks like a duck...

There is no need to label my beliefs because I acknowledge MFW:

The viewpoint opposed to TULIP may be termed Moral Free Will (MFW) and described as follows:

M – God’s requirement for salvation (GRFS) is a Moral condition called faith, which is manifested as seeking God’s righteousness or salvation, which in turn presumes sufficient human volition even for sinners to make them morally accountable.

F – God enables all morally accountable souls sufficient Freedom to satisfy GRFS—or not, because His grace is not irresistible, which means sinners are accountable and justly condemned when they do not repent and accept Christ’s atonement for their sins

W – Faith is almost synonymous with Will, but volition focuses on faith as cooperation with God (or not), and cooperating with God by accepting His grace is NOT meritorious or working to earn heaven or salvation by obeying moral laws.

Adding the qualifier “moral” indicates that regarding salvation the choice is binary: God’s Way or the highway to hell.

 

[Cameron143]

If it quacks like a duck...

There is no need to label my beliefs because I acknowledge MFW:

The viewpoint opposed to TULIP may be termed Moral Free Will (MFW) and described as follows:

M – God’s requirement for salvation (GRFS) is a Moral condition called faith, which is manifested as seeking God’s righteousness or salvation, which in turn presumes sufficient human volition even for sinners to make them morally accountable.

F – God enables all morally accountable souls sufficient Freedom to satisfy GRFS—or not, because His grace is not irresistible, which means sinners are accountable and justly condemned when they do not repent and accept Christ’s atonement for their sins

W – Faith is almost synonymous with Will, but volition focuses on faith as cooperation with God (or not), and cooperating with God by accepting His grace is NOT meritorious or working to earn heaven or salvation by obeying moral laws.

I see. You are free to label others as you see fit, but don't label you. No need. Nothing to see here. How hypocritical.

 

[GWH]

I see. You are free to label others as you see fit, but don't label you. No need. Nothing to see here. How hypocritical.

I already acknowledge quacking like a MFWist, so label me that all you want!
Sheesh!

 

[studier]

What you say is correct! However, as Jer 18:8 illustrates, God gives his people a choice knowing full well the condition of their heart. Knowing that they will not listen to Him.
They contemplate, and make a decision or choice as you say. But Jer 18:12 explains the decision that they reached and why.

God had not softened their heart. Therefore, they made a bad decision and it could not have been otherwise!
If that is your idea of MFW, then perhaps you should ask God to change your heart to make wise decisions.

I'm being rebuked and advised by a potato. Nearly an end to another somewhat interesting day...

Why are you switching to me with your Jeremiah verses? I think they've been dealt with quite a bit already.

Anyway, your question presupposes Calvinism and you even being a normally respectful potato head - which I now notice you've transformed into a warrior potato - well-know that I and others will not see these verses Calvinistically.

God gives Jeremiah an experiential lesson of how He interactively deals with peoples and nations. The lessons are that if they are marred and repent, then He has the ability to and will responsively rework them and not destroy them.

He gives Judah & Jerusalem a warning that He's about to judge them. They essentially don't care. It's repetitive volitional disobedience. Some of the same terminology is in Jer2.

If you prefer to insert errant theology here and make this God's fault, feel free.

I suppose for consistency you'll also want to make His disciplining of His Children for bad behavior under Grace His fault also.

 

[studier]

What God has provided in Christ has no application to the unsaved. So making your argument for free will for someone who is in Christ is ridiculous. And thanks for more of your Pelagian heresy explanation.

Salvation isn't for the unsaved? Your logic escapes me, which is a good thing.
Your next statement also escapes me, which is likely also a good thing.
Out of the closet now. Please see here re: heresy.

 

[Cameron143]

I already acknowledge quacking like a MFWist, so label me that all you want!
Sheesh!

No. You quack like a Pelagian heretic. If you get to choose how you characterize me, it's only fair that I characterize you.

 

[Cameron143]

Salvation isn't for the unsaved? Your logic escapes me, which is a good thing.
Your next statement also escapes me, which is likely also a good thing.
Out of the closet now. Please see here re: heresy.

More gobbledygook. You are tired. You are usually much more reasoned in your thinking. Of course salvation comes from God to the unsaved. Why would someone who is saved need saving? You can act like that's what I posted if you like, but doing so is ridiculous. Get some rest.

 

[studier]

Well, you are improving your manners. Guess that's something. Perhaps I have just wearied you. Hopefully you'll be back to full insultery tomorrow. Get some rest.

And you're lessening yours.
That is something.
You're a very limited source of weary but it all adds up.
Why would you hope such a thing?
Will do, Thanks.

 

[studier]

I already acknowledge quacking like a MFWist, so label me that all you want!
Sheesh!

Some posting of old movies yesterday got me looking them up. One was the Marx Bros. Think I'll watch Duck Soup. Thanks for the inspiration.

 

[Cameron143]

And you're lessening yours.
That is something.
You're a very limited source of weary but it all adds up.
Why would you hope such a thing?
Will do, Thanks.

Actually, I complimented you while all you did was stop insulting me. You still respond with your normal patronizing but the fatigue has made you lose most of your edginess. It's a better look for you.

 

[studier]

More gobbledygook. You are tired. You are usually much more reasoned in your thinking. Of course salvation comes from God to the unsaved. Why would someone who is saved need saving? You can act like that's what I posted if you like, but doing so is ridiculous. Get some rest.

What God has provided in Christ has no application to the unsaved. So making your argument for free will for someone who is in Christ is ridiculous. And thanks for more of your Pelagian heresy explanation.

Please be clearer in what you say.

God has provided salvation in Christ. The unsaved need salvation. The salvation God has provided in Christ has application to the unsaved and is accordingly offered to them to receive/take hold of.

God has provided salvation in Christ. The saved are in Christ. The salvation God has provided in Christ has application to the saved to whom have received/taken hold of it.

Ambiguities are ambiguities. Maybe salvation has more breadth and application than you're willing to see.

 

[studier]

Actually, I complimented you while all you did was stop insulting me. You still respond with your normal patronizing but the fatigue has made you lose most of your edginess. It's a better look for you.

Yes, I noticed the Pelagian heretic compliment. And you're correct about the heretic compliment as I defined for you. Pelagian not so much.

Pray for my limited energy or that @Rufus takes his meds or both.

 

[GWH]

No. You quack like a Pelagian heretic. If you get to choose how you characterize me, it's only fair that I characterize you.

Only if you define what you mean by Pelagian, as I have defined what is meant by tulipist:

The problematic part of the doctrine of election (DOE) is not the term “elect”, which simply means “choose souls to be saved”,
but rather it is whether God determines that only some sinners will be saved and that the majority of humanity are condemned to hell in accordance with what is known as the Calvinist TULIP dogma, which may be described as follows:

T – total depravity, meaning souls are unable to exercise sufficient MFW to seek salvation.

U – unconditional election, meaning that souls need not satisfy a divine requirement such as faith or repentance, but God chooses to save some while damning the rest to hell.

L – limited atonement, meaning that Christ died to pay the penalty of sin only for elect souls.

I – irresistible grace, meaning that elect souls cannot resist or refuse God’s will for them to be saved.

P – perseverance of the saints, meaning that the elect cannot repudiate their salvation and commit apostasy, because God perseveres in keeping them saved.

 

[Cameron143]

Please be clearer in what you say.

God has provided salvation in Christ. The unsaved need salvation. The salvation God has provided in Christ has application to the unsaved and is accordingly offered to them to receive/take hold of.

God has provided salvation in Christ. The saved are in Christ. The salvation God has provided in Christ has application to the saved to whom have received/taken hold of it.

Ambiguities are ambiguities. Maybe salvation has more breadth and application than you're willing to see.

I was plenty clear to anyone who wasn't deliberately trying to misrepresent what I'm posting. And you still can't help but use a patronizing tone. So go ahead. Teach me the deep things of God that you know.

 

[Cameron143]

Only if you define what you mean by Pelagian, as I have defined what is meant by tulipist:

The problematic part of the doctrine of election (DOE) is not the term “elect”, which simply means “choose souls to be saved”,
but rather it is whether God determines that only some sinners will be saved and that the majority of humanity are condemned to hell in accordance with what is known as the Calvinist TULIP dogma, which may be described as follows:

T – total depravity, meaning souls are unable to exercise sufficient MFW to seek salvation.

U – unconditional election, meaning that souls need not satisfy a divine requirement such as faith or repentance, but God chooses to save some while damning the rest to hell.

L – limited atonement, meaning that Christ died to pay the penalty of sin only for elect souls.

I – irresistible grace, meaning that elect souls cannot resist or refuse God’s will for them to be saved.

P – perseverance of the saints, meaning that the elect cannot repudiate their salvation and commit apostasy, because God perseveres in keeping them saved.

Find a new pal. Make up labels for them.