Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

[BillyBob]

Romans 7:18-24a I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh; for I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do. Instead, I keep on doing the evil I do not want to do. And if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. So this is the principle I have discovered: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law. But I see another law at work in my body, warring against the law of my mind and holding me captive to the law of sin that dwells within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Thank you for the panels that you put together. They shine a light on God's word to all those around you. That is exactly what we are told to do, to be light bearers in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation.
Everyone needs God's word, and that's what they bring in a most beautiful way!

 

[Magenta]

Thank you for the panels that you put together. They shine a light on God's word to all those around you. That is exactly what we are told to do, to be light bearers in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation.
Everyone needs God's word, and that's what they bring in a most beautiful way!

Awwww, that is so very kind of you to say, BillyBob! Thank you...and to God be the glory!

 

[reneweddaybyday]

AI, did the Christian doctrine of total inability originate from Paul?

Yes, the Christian doctrine of total inability is strongly supported by Paul's writings, especially in Romans ch 3,
Romans ch 7, Romans ch 8, and Ephesians ch 2, where he describes humanity's universal sinfulness and spiritual death, making
them incapable of seeking or pleasing God apart from His grace. The doctrine draws directly from these Pauline
passages to explain the pervasive effects of sin on human nature.

hmmmm ... I asked the same "AI, did the Christian doctrine of total inability originate from Paul?" ... and the full unrevised result ...

The Christian doctrine of "total inability," which asserts that humanity is inherently corrupted by sin and incapable of choosing God or salvation without divine grace, was not originated by the Apostle Paul but was primarily formulated by St. Augustine in the 5th century.

While Augustine's doctrine drew on Paul's biblical epistles—particularly Romans—to develop his case, the fully defined theological concept emerged centuries later during a heated debate known as the Pelagian controversy.

Paul's contributions to the idea

The foundational biblical texts used to support the doctrine of total inability are primarily found in the letters of Paul. The Apostle described a universal state of sinfulness that affects all people and discussed the inability of the "flesh" to please God.

Key Pauline passages include:

• Romans 3:10–12: Paul references Old Testament passages to conclude that "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God".
• Romans 7:18: Paul laments, "For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out".
• Ephesians 2:1: Paul states that humans are "dead in the trespasses and sins" before they are spiritually made alive by God.

Augustine's formulation of the doctrine

The theological framework for total inability was fully articulated by Augustine of Hippo as a direct response to the teachings of Pelagius, a British monk who taught that humans were capable of choosing and doing good by their own free will.

In the 5th century, Augustine argued against Pelagius for a few key reasons:

• Response to Pelagianism: Augustine felt that Pelagius's views minimized the necessity of God's grace and denied the severity of humanity's fallen nature.
• Nature of sin: He argued that original sin corrupted human nature so profoundly that the will was no longer free to choose good on its own. While the natural man can still make choices, he is morally unable to choose what is truly good and pleasing to God.
• Necessity of grace: For Augustine, God's grace is not simply an aid but is absolutely essential to transform the human will and make it capable of choosing righteousness.

Distinction between Paul and Augustine

While Paul's writings provided the inspiration for the doctrine, the fully developed concept of total inability is a product of Augustine's theological synthesis. The debate over Pelagianism forced Augustine to define and clarify the consequences of original sin in a way that Paul did not explicitly articulate.

The difference can be seen this way:

• Paul's role: Paul described the symptoms of humanity's spiritual condition—that all people are under sin and unable to attain righteousness on their own.
• Augustine's role: Augustine provided a systematic diagnosis for that condition—that humanity inherited a corrupted, morally incapable nature from Adam.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

it's written when and where Satan entered Judas - - not said of anyone else in scripture - - but where is it said, that Satan left him?

remember Jesus calls him the son of perdition ((John 17:12)) and this is exactly the name of the antichrist ((2 Thessalonians 2:3)) who is to come.

agree that no verse states that satan left Judas. However, Scripture does tell us

Matthew 27:3-5 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

While I realize his repentance did not result in salvation and it was more of a worldly sorrow which led to his death, I do not believe that if Judas was still possessed he would have felt any remorse for his actions ... although what do I know? ... a whole herd of swine was choked in the sea at one point ... so possibly his suicide was a result of satan working in him. I just don't see satan causing Judas to repent of having connived with the chief priests to betray the Lord Jesus Christ.
.

 

[BillyBob]

AI, did the Christian doctrine of total inability originate from Paul?

Yes, the Christian doctrine of total inability is strongly supported by Paul's writings, especially in Romans ch 3,
Romans ch 7, Romans ch 8, and Ephesians ch 2, where he describes humanity's universal sinfulness and spiritual death, making
them incapable of seeking or pleasing God apart from His grace. The doctrine draws directly from these Pauline
passages to explain the pervasive effects of sin on human nature.

The difference can be seen this way:

• Paul's role: Paul described the symptoms of humanity's spiritual condition—that all people are under sin and unable to attain righteousness on their own.
• Augustine's role: Augustine provided a systematic diagnosis for that condition—that humanity inherited a corrupted, morally incapable nature from Adam.

In both cases AI seemed to come back with similar results.
The reformed doctrine has been developed over a period of time. Nobody has claimed otherwise, but it does draw from scripture written by Paul. . . . . . . .
So, what is your point?
Magenta may have put the results in a more readable format, but I see no attempt by her to change the results in a significant way.

 

[Magenta]

In both cases AI seemed to come back with similar results.
The reformed doctrine has been developed over a period of time. Nobody has claimed otherwise, but it does draw from scripture written by Paul. . . . . . . .
So, what is your point?
Magenta may have put the results in a more readable format, but I see no attempt by her to change the results in a significant way.

RDBD loves to falsely accuse me. She entered this thread doing that very thing...

Which was really weird, because she did it while going on about how we should be treating each other as Christians.

Total hypocrite. FWers use their freedom to sin.

 

[rogerg]

I said the content was not all about the saved but he explained everything so we know that ALL MEN have a measure of Faith and since it takes Faith to KNOW GOD chapter 1 tells us of those who know God but reject God and ultimately become reprobate.

You are the one interjecting what you think I said because you assume everything.

I understand why you do because if you knew God and reject God and become reprobate then you can lose your salvation.

Wrong - it did not take a measure of faith for them to know God. Faith was not needed by them in order to know God because it was God Himself who manifested that knowledge within them, thereby making it plain to them. Their faith given from God if they had any, which they didn't, had nothing to do with it - knowledge was directly given to them by God. Therefore, by that, the measure of faith you stated, was not represented by/in their knowledge of God.

[Rom 1:19 ESV] 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.


Those saved cannot lose salvation because they are kept by the power of God Himself unto salvation.

So, you're wrong on both counts.

 

[Magenta]

Wrong - it did not take a measure of faith for them to know God. Faith was not needed by them in order to know God because it was God Himself who manifested that knowledge within them, thereby making it plain to them. Their faith if they had any, which they didn't, had nothing to do with it - it was directly given to them by God. Therefore, by that, the measure of faith you stated, was not represented by/in their knowledge of God.

[Rom 1:19 ESV] 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.


Those saved cannot lose salvation because they are kept by the power of God Himself unto salvation.

So, you're wrong on both counts.

Some cannot seem to grasp that knowing there is a God is vastly different than believing the gospel.

 

[rogerg]

Some cannot seem to grasp that knowing there is a God is vastly different than believing the gospel.

Since this is such a critically important doctrine, I refuse to let him state something wrongly and then simply get away with it.
He tries to manipulate scripture into supporting his intent rather than being faithful to what it says.
He needs to be watched very closely.

 

[lrs68]

Wrong - it did not take a measure of faith for them to know God. Faith was not needed by them in order to know God because it was God Himself who manifested that knowledge within them, thereby making it plain to them. Their faith given from God if they had any, which they didn't, had nothing to do with it - knowledge was directly given to them by God. Therefore, by that, the measure of faith you stated, was not represented by/in their knowledge of God.

[Rom 1:19 ESV] 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.


Those saved cannot lose salvation because they are kept by the power of God Himself unto salvation.

So, you're wrong on both counts.

Actually I have said this same thing 20 times and YOU red x me.

But now you say it so it must be true.

I am glad you are finally paying attention to what I am posting and it's becoming true to you confirmed by the Holy Ghost!

Praise God!

 

[rogerg]

Actually I have said this same thing 20 times and YOU red x me.

But now you say it so it must be true.

I am glad you are finally paying attention to what I am posting and it's becoming true to you confirmed by the Holy Ghost!

Praise God!

If you did, which I don't think that you did, in this post you said they had to have faith to have knowledge, didn't you? That statement is patently wrong. And if you're wrong here, then you were also wrong in your other posts - you wouldn't have said it differently elsewhere.

 

[Magenta]

Since this is such a critically important doctrine, I refuse to let him state something wrongly and then simply get away with it.
He tries to manipulate scripture into supporting his intent rather than being faithful to what it says.
He needs to be watched very closely.

They just totally and quite dishonestly misrepresented me in another thread as well. Quite the minion, talking to me as if I deny
the natural man when it is FWers who largely do that, while my posts constantly address the issue of the natural vs the spiritual.

 

[rogerg]

They just totally and quite dishonestly misrepresented me in another thread as well. Quite the minion, talking to me as if I deny
the natural man when it is FWers who largely do that, while my posts constantly address the issue of the natural vs the spiritual.

Oh, I know, Magenta, I noticed that too.

 

[Magenta]

Oh, I know, Magenta, I noticed that too.

All so they can cling to their lie of whom Romans was written to. Unbelievable!

 

[lrs68]

If you did, which I don't think that you did, in this post you said they had to have faith to have knowledge, didn't you? That statement is patently wrong. And if you're wrong here, then you were also wrong in your other posts - you wouldn't have said it differently elsewhere.

Actually no it's not because in Acts Paul said God inherently made man to seek Him, in Romans Paul said God gave [every] man a measure of Faith. So Romans 1 is not a shocker because of what Paul wrote in several other places.

 

[Magenta]

Since this is such a critically important doctrine, I refuse to let him state something wrongly and then simply get away with it.
He tries to manipulate scripture into supporting his intent rather than being faithful to what it says.
He needs to be watched very closely.

I have also noticed that he changes what Scripture says, by adding to it to make it say what he wants.

 

[rogerg]

All so they can cling to their lie of whom Romans was written to. Unbelievable!

And they don't even interpret that correctly, most notably:

[Rom 1:19, 31 KJV]
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them. ...
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

In v19, God qualifies what they can know as "that which may be known", in other words, there is more that exists they can't comprehend by their "knowledge" and,
in v31, that while they have certain knowledge, they are without understanding i.e. spiritual discernment. So, by that, we see they are brought back to the limitations of the natural man

 

[rogerg]

Actually no it's not because in Acts Paul said God inherently made man to seek Him, in Romans Paul said God gave [every] man a measure of Faith. So Romans 1 is not a shocker because of what Paul wrote in several other places.

No, God does/did not give every man a measure of faith.

 

[rogerg]

I have also noticed that he changes what Scripture says, by adding to it to make it say what he wants.

Absolutely agree

 

[lrs68]

AI Overview
Yes, the Book of Romans addresses the state of the "natural man" —

There's proof of what I have been saying + we can also add viewpoints from Theologians and Scholars to confirm.