Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You have no way of knowing this.
if he does not share the gospel with everyone. at least in their hearts.

then he can not judge them rightly.

they would by a perfect judge, be released by ignorance. You can not judge a person for unbelief, when they had no ability or opportunity to believe.
 
which is what Paul experienced in romans 7

Which is why we need Christ..

But one who is in Christ doesn't have to be bound to the Romans 7 scenario. Romans 7 is describing life without Christ which is why he calls out at the end "who will save me". The Christian is already saved. In Romans 7 there is no option except to walk after the flesh. The Christian has the power of the Living God at work within him. He can walk after the Spirit and be free. Paul is contrasting the unsaved life in Romans 7 to the saved life in Romans 8. "Now, therefore" Rom.8:1 As they say, what's the therefore there for? Now (that you are saved) you are no longer bound to the flesh as you were before your salvation. Romans 7 has no hope until Christ "steps up to the plate". To say a Christian is in that same hopeless situation is sad, to say the least.
 
Actually this is why you are confused.

I am using and responding to your thoughts that this is talking about BEFORE he was born

At that time, he had no spirit. (at this time he does ) so in effect. He can struggle now. he could not then

so no need to read the rest of your post. You already has shown you are responding from a case of misunderstanding what I am saying.

lets get that correct first.

No idea how you jumped to before he was born. He didn't exist before he was born so why would one even consider he didn't struggle.

We can at least agree I have no idea where you are coming from. :confused:
 
But one who is in Christ doesn't have to be bound to the Romans 7 scenario. Romans 7 is describing life without Christ which is why he calls out at the end "who will save me". The Christian is already saved. In Romans 7 there is no option except to walk after the flesh. The Christian has the power of the Living God at work within him. He can walk after the Spirit and be free. Paul is contrasting the unsaved life in Romans 7 to the saved life in Romans 8. "Now, therefore" Rom.8:1 As they say, what's the therefore there for? Now (that you are saved) you are no longer bound to the flesh as you were before your salvation. Romans 7 has no hope until Christ "steps up to the plate". To say a Christian is in that same hopeless situation is sad, to say the least.
But at the end of Romans 7, Paul is describing his life as a Christian. Yes, he was saved. Yet he, like all Christians, didn't live a perfect life. So he writes:

“21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.” (Ro 7:21-25 NKJV)

When he writes in verse 24, "O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" he is not writing of his pre-conversion self.
 
Are you sinless? I am asking this with all honesty, not trying to be rude or anything, just trying to see where you are coming from (I ask because of past conversations on this passage with others.. who all thought they were sinless)

If you had read the rest of my post you would have seen I answered that.
 
But at the end of Romans 7, Paul is describing his life as a Christian. Yes, he was saved. Yet he, like all Christians, didn't live a perfect life. So he writes:

“21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.” (Ro 7:21-25 NKJV)

When he writes in verse 24, "O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" he is not writing of his pre-conversion self.

I don't know what more to say. Is this why the Church is so powerless? Christians go round seeing themselves as wretched and without hope? Because that is the position he is in without Christ.

24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

How anyone can look at that and say that is the state of a saved man, baffles me?

It's not about whether we sin or not, it's about our hopelessness apart form Christ. Anyone who is in a saved state, cannot in all truthfulness, see themself in a hopeless position. If they do, there is something very, very wrong with their salvation.
 
I don't know what more to say. Is this why the Church is so powerless? Christians go round seeing themselves as wretched and without hope? Because that is the position he is in without Christ.

24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

How anyone can look at that and say that is the state of a saved man, baffles me?

It's not about whether we sin or not, it's about our hopelessness apart form Christ. Anyone who is in a saved state, cannot in all truthfulness, see themself in a hopeless position. If they do, there is something very, very wrong with their salvation.

I would say that they are the words of a saved man. I agree with John Gill, whose commentary n that verses expresses it far better than I could:

"Not as considered in Christ, for as such he was a most happy man, being blessed with all spiritual blessings, and secure from all condemnation and wrath; nor with respect to his inward man, which was renewing day by day, and in which he enjoyed true spiritual peace and pleasure; nor with regard to his future state, of the happiness of which he had no doubt: he knew in whom he had believed; he was fully persuaded nothing could separate him from the love of God; and that when he had finished his course, he should have the crown of righteousness laid up for him: but this exclamation he made on account of the troubles he met with in his Christian race; and not so much on account of his reproaches, persecutions, and distresses for Christ s sake; though these were many and great, yet these did not move or much affect him, he rather took delight and pleasure in them; but on account of that continual combat between, the flesh and spirit in him; or by reason of that mass of corruption and body of sin he carried about with him; such a complaint Isaiah makes, Isa 6:5, which in the Septuagint is, "O miserable I". This shows him to be, and to speak of himself as a regenerate man; since an unregenerate man feels no uneasiness upon that score, or makes any complaint of it, saying as here,

who shall deliver me from the body of this death? or "this body of death"; by which some understand, this mortal body, or the body of flesh subject to death for sin; and suppose the apostle expresses his desire to quit it, to depart out of it, that he might enjoy an immortal life, being weary of the burden of this mortal body he carried about with him: so Philo the Jew represents the body as a burden to the soul, which "it carries about as a dead carcass," and never lays down from his birth till his death: though it should be observed, that when the apostle elsewhere expresses an earnest longing after a state of immortality and glory, some sort of reluctance and unwillingness to leave the body is to be observed, which is not to be discerned here; and was this his sense, one should think he would rather have said, when shall I be delivered? or why am I not delivered? and not who shall deliver me? though admitting this to be his meaning, that he was weary of the present life, and wanted to be rid of his mortal body, this did not arise from the troubles and anxieties of life, with which he was pressed, which oftentimes make wicked men long to die; but from the load of sin, and burden of corruption, under which he groaned, and still bespeaks him a regenerate man; for not of outward calamities, but of indwelling sin is he all along speaking in the context: wherefore it is better by "this body of death" to understand what he in Ro 6:6 calls "the body of sin"; that mass of corruption that lodged in him, which is called "a body," because of its fleshly carnal nature; because of its manner of operation, it exerts itself by the members of the body; and because it consists of various parts and members, as a body does; and "a body of death," because it makes men liable to death: it was that which the apostle says "slew" him, and which itself is to a regenerate man, as a dead carcass, stinking and loathsome; and is to him like that punishment Mezentius inflicted on criminals, by fastening a living body to a putrid carcass [{t }]: and it is emphatically called the body of "this death," referring to the captivity of his mind, to the law of sin, which was as death unto him: and no wonder therefore he so earnestly desires deliverance, saying, "who shall deliver me?" which he speaks not as being ignorant of his deliverer, whom he mentions with thankfulness in Ro 7:25; or as doubting and despairing of deliverance, for he was comfortably assured of it, and therefore gives thanks beforehand for it; but as expressing the inward pantings, and earnest breathings of his soul after it; and as declaring the difficulty of it, yea, the impossibility of its being obtained by himself, or by any other than he, whom he had in view: he knew he could not deliver himself from sin; that the law could not deliver him; and that none but God could do it; and which he believed he would, through Jesus Christ his Lord.
 
But one who is in Christ doesn't have to be bound to the Romans 7 scenario.

Your right,, but it does not mean they are not. thats why paul wrote romans 7 in my view. to let us know. even he struggled.. so we do not get distressed when we do fail

Romans 7 is describing life without Christ which is why he calls out at the end "who will save me". The Christian is already saved. In Romans 7 there is no option except to walk after the flesh. The Christian has the power of the Living God at work within him. He can walk after the Spirit and be free. Paul is contrasting the unsaved life in Romans 7 to the saved life in Romans 8. "Now, therefore" Rom.8:1 As they say, what's the therefore there for? Now (that you are saved) you are no longer bound to the flesh as you were before your salvation. Romans 7 has no hope until Christ "steps up to the plate". To say a Christian is in that same hopeless situation is sad, to say the least.
I can not see this

I ask you. are you sinless?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DavidLamb
No idea how you jumped to before he was born. He didn't exist before he was born so why would one even consider he didn't struggle.
Are you being serious. or just mocking?

We can at least agree I have no idea where you are coming from. :confused:

lol. And you will not as long as you keep playing those games

before he was born = before he was born again, before he was saved. etc etc

again, are you sinless??
 
If you had read the rest of my post you would have seen I answered that.

Then I have no idea why you would even think of interpreting this passage the way you do

the ONLY reason to interpret that way is to claim before you were saved, you struggled. After you no longer struggle. hence you have become sinless) Your literally the only person I have met who interpret this passage as you do and does not claim you are sinless)
 
  • Like
Reactions: DavidLamb
if he does not share the gospel with everyone. at least in their hearts.

then he can not judge them rightly.

they would by a perfect judge, be released by ignorance. You can not judge a person for unbelief, when they had no ability or opportunity to believe.

I know that I will never resort to the unbiblical, untenable, disgusting "system" of limited atonement to create an answer for those who do not hear the Gospel.

I think we can trust God to know what He is doing and that He is just.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Everlasting-Grace
I would say that they are the words of a saved man. I agree with John Gill, whose commentary n that verses expresses it far better than I could:

"Not as considered in Christ, for as such he was a most happy man, being blessed with all spiritual blessings, and secure from all condemnation and wrath; nor with respect to his inward man, which was renewing day by day, and in which he enjoyed true spiritual peace and pleasure; nor with regard to his future state, of the happiness of which he had no doubt: he knew in whom he had believed; he was fully persuaded nothing could separate him from the love of God; and that when he had finished his course, he should have the crown of righteousness laid up for him: but this exclamation he made on account of the troubles he met with in his Christian race; and not so much on account of his reproaches, persecutions, and distresses for Christ s sake; though these were many and great, yet these did not move or much affect him, he rather took delight and pleasure in them; but on account of that continual combat between, the flesh and spirit in him; or by reason of that mass of corruption and body of sin he carried about with him; such a complaint Isaiah makes, Isa 6:5, which in the Septuagint is, "O miserable I". This shows him to be, and to speak of himself as a regenerate man; since an unregenerate man feels no uneasiness upon that score, or makes any complaint of it, saying as here,

who shall deliver me from the body of this death? or "this body of death"; by which some understand, this mortal body, or the body of flesh subject to death for sin; and suppose the apostle expresses his desire to quit it, to depart out of it, that he might enjoy an immortal life, being weary of the burden of this mortal body he carried about with him: so Philo the Jew represents the body as a burden to the soul, which "it carries about as a dead carcass," and never lays down from his birth till his death: though it should be observed, that when the apostle elsewhere expresses an earnest longing after a state of immortality and glory, some sort of reluctance and unwillingness to leave the body is to be observed, which is not to be discerned here; and was this his sense, one should think he would rather have said, when shall I be delivered? or why am I not delivered? and not who shall deliver me? though admitting this to be his meaning, that he was weary of the present life, and wanted to be rid of his mortal body, this did not arise from the troubles and anxieties of life, with which he was pressed, which oftentimes make wicked men long to die; but from the load of sin, and burden of corruption, under which he groaned, and still bespeaks him a regenerate man; for not of outward calamities, but of indwelling sin is he all along speaking in the context: wherefore it is better by "this body of death" to understand what he in Ro 6:6 calls "the body of sin"; that mass of corruption that lodged in him, which is called "a body," because of its fleshly carnal nature; because of its manner of operation, it exerts itself by the members of the body; and because it consists of various parts and members, as a body does; and "a body of death," because it makes men liable to death: it was that which the apostle says "slew" him, and which itself is to a regenerate man, as a dead carcass, stinking and loathsome; and is to him like that punishment Mezentius inflicted on criminals, by fastening a living body to a putrid carcass [{t }]: and it is emphatically called the body of "this death," referring to the captivity of his mind, to the law of sin, which was as death unto him: and no wonder therefore he so earnestly desires deliverance, saying, "who shall deliver me?" which he speaks not as being ignorant of his deliverer, whom he mentions with thankfulness in Ro 7:25; or as doubting and despairing of deliverance, for he was comfortably assured of it, and therefore gives thanks beforehand for it; but as expressing the inward pantings, and earnest breathings of his soul after it; and as declaring the difficulty of it, yea, the impossibility of its being obtained by himself, or by any other than he, whom he had in view: he knew he could not deliver himself from sin; that the law could not deliver him; and that none but God could do it; and which he believed he would, through Jesus Christ his Lord.

Just be aware John Gill was a Calvinist.
 
Just be aware John Gill was a Calvinist.
So what does that mean with regard to his commentary on Romans 7:24? Albert Barnes's theological views included a belief in unlimited atonement, meaning that Christ died for all, and he questioned strict Calvinist doctrines on original sin and imputation, but his commentary on the verse has Paul writing as a saved man, so does the commentary of Adam Clarke, a Methodist.
 
So what does that mean with regard to his commentary on Romans 7:24? Albert Barnes's theological views included a belief in unlimited atonement, meaning that Christ died for all, and he questioned strict Calvinist doctrines on original sin and imputation, but his commentary on the verse has Paul writing as a saved man, so does the commentary of Adam Clarke, a Methodist.

Yes, Gill has it correct as does Adam Clarke.
Still, I proceed with caution always when reading any commentary by a person who ascribes to the doctrines of TULIP.
 
I know that I will never resort to the unbiblical, untenable, disgusting "system" of limited atonement to create an answer for those who do not hear the Gospel.

I think we can trust God to know what He is doing and that He is just.
it would keep us sane, and help us to further trust him..
 
You insinuated it by what you said.

I would not expect you to think you said it. But that's the problem. this is what everyone who is not reformed sees. and for good reason.


And here we have it. Instead of an actual argument to back what you are saying, You mock and belittle someone as if they have no knowledge

Dude, I studied theology proper for many a year. I not only have considered God and who he is, its one of the reasons I desire to be closer to him. Not because I am worthy of anything. but because he is a worthy God who can be trusted.


Yes they have, But it does not mean what I said is not true.

You want God to be a God who claims he is loving, but in the end, He is not really loving, keeping his word from people

Romans 1 says the world knows who and what God is
It says they know they are rightly judged
All God has to do is get them to call out. If they seek. He promised them they would find him

Its not his fault they do not seek him, so he is not bound to send people to preach to them who would never under any circumstance recieve him

That is why he flooded the earth. No one would repent.

Thats why he waited 400 years to send Israel into Canaan. The sin of the Amorite was not yet complete (they actually still believed in him. and why when he did send them in, he said to kill them all.. Because all we have to do is look that they did not do as God said, and these people took Israel down with them, Because they did not believe.

there is no foundation for the character of God in fatalism.
I didn't insinuate God is evil. You ascribe that to me because of your understanding of God and what I posted. Then you give your bona fides of studying for a year as evidence you understand God. Then you tell me I want God to be loving, but He really isn't. All the while telling me I'm mocking people. Hmmm.

I don't want God to be anything but who He is. God is love. But God doesn't have to always manifest love to still be love. But He is always righteous and holy...Psalm 145:17. But there is no verse that says He is always loving in all His ways. And the Bible is replete with stories where God pours out His wrath on people. Unless you believe God pouring out His wrath is an act of love, then God does not always act lovingly.
I use the example of people who never heard the gospel. God does not act lovingly towards them. He could have easily have made the gospel known, but did not. I don't know why God made such a choice, but it isn't inconsistent with the character of God. God is under no obligation to exercise grace towards anyone. That He does is incredible. But to believe He is obligated to do so is false. He exercises mercy to whom He will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rosemaryx
Well, as I believe the doctrines of grace, I tend to view with caution those who don't believe those doctrines.

Love the "doctrines of grace" label...... it really should be the "doctrines of grace for randomly selected."
 
You implied it in post#4276. You said you don't know what happens to them in a later post yet you want to argue with those who are confident God doesn't judge anyone based on what they don't know.



Not judged by God, condemned by Adam. The Father overlooked our sin and judged it in Christ.
As is often the case in our discussions, I don't feel you are understanding what I'm saying. I'm sure you feel the same way. Thanks for the discussion. Grace and peace.
 
I didn't insinuate God is evil.
Actually, your belief system insinuates it

again, you can deny it. It does not make it false though

You ascribe that to me because of your understanding of God and what I posted. Then you give your bona fides of studying for a year as evidence you understand God. Then you tell me I want God to be loving, but He really isn't. All the while telling me I'm mocking people. Hmmm.
And you ascribe based on your belief system a system wqe call fatalism.

Studying for a year? what??

I don't want God to be anything but who He is. God is love. But God doesn't have to always manifest love to still be love. But He is always righteous and holy...Psalm 145:17. But there is no verse that says He is always loving in all His ways. And the Bible is replete with stories where God pours out His wrath on people. Unless you believe God pouring out His wrath is an act of love, then God does not always act lovingly.
If justice and love are not united. then God is not perfect.

I use the example of people who never heard the gospel. God does not act lovingly towards them. He could have easily have made the gospel known, but did not. I don't know why God made such a choice, but it isn't inconsistent with the character of God. God is under no obligation to exercise grace towards anyone. That He does is incredible. But to believe He is obligated to do so is false. He exercises mercy to whom He will.
Your example fails because God has shown time and time again when people are open to hearing his word. he gives it to them, when

God made the choice based on his will

That whoever sees and believes.

You take faith out of it for whatever reason. and make God force people who would never believe to believe. and keep others lost and in the dark. because he does not act on them

then claim God is a loving god.