Can We Really Exercise Free Will?
- Thread starter LifelongLearner
- Start date
-
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.
God created mankind in his likeness and image which means, among things, that man is a moral being. As moral beings our proclivity will be to pursue good or evil. When God placed enmity between the Woman and the Serpent, his decree greatly restrained Eve's inclination and attraction to not only the "serpent" (Satan) himself but to Evil. Eve's subsequent aversion to evil clearly implies that she did have a proclivity for God and what is Good. Gen 3:15, therefore, is teaching us that God literally and sovereignly reconciled Eve unto Himself. And this truth is borne out by scriptures that reveal what Eve's spiritual attitude towards God was after she was reconciled to Him (Gen 4:1, 25) . But Adam is conspicuously missing from God's decree in this text; for God could have just as easily decreed for that enmity with the "serpent" to apply to both A&E but He did not! Therefore, we have no logical or biblical reason to believe that Adam, too, was reconciled to God, most especially since Adam would not be the one to "seed" godly believers -- the godly seed would come from the Woman, a concept that would have been entirely alien to the ANE (ancient Near East world). Of course, this promise regarding Eve foreshadows the virgin birth.
Inability to choose to believe apart from God changing his heart first as I recall. Close?
Why should I have to use other scriptures when 2Pet 2:17-19 speaks plainly for itself? The ones who are enslaved to their depravity are those with spurious faith and who have "fallen away". IOW, the people described in vv. 17-19 were never believers!
Is there anything else your blind eyes cannot see in this passage?
I'm not headed into another discussion on the topic beyond the one we're in - the similarity between Cameron and TULIP in regard firstly to the "T".
Part of the problem in these discussions is that there are many versions of this which nuance or state differently what Total Depravity ultimately means. If we read closely, we'll see some of these ultimate meanings showing up in these posts as allegations against the opposition.
This one from: CARM
Total Depravity – Man is completely touched/affected by sin in all that he is (in nature, he is completely fallen) but is not as bad as he could be (in action, i.e., not all murder, etc.). Furthermore, this total depravity means that the unregenerate will not, of their own free will, choose to receive Christ.
There are others I've seen that are clearer and others that are not as clear, others that state conclusions differently, etc...
So, 3 statements I see:
- Man is completely touched/affected by sin in all that he is (in nature, he is completely fallen)
- but is not as bad as he could be (in action, i.e., not all murder, etc.)
- this total depravity means that the unregenerate will not, of their own free will, choose to receive Christ.
Or using another version of your choosing? They're easy to find online.
Because you ignored context, so I offered another customary path of proof-texting to you from which to bring you back to context.
Here's what seems to be your favored version:
17 These people are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. 18 For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of the flesh, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. 19 They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity-- for "people are slaves to whatever has mastered them." (2 Pet. 2:17-19 NIV)
From your quoted statement:
"spurious" meaning?
"fallen away" means they had faith?
Neither of these words are used in 2:17-19 so why do you use them for Scripture that "speaks plainly for itself?
Explain?
And this is why nothing ever changes. People make broad statements, and when clarity is offered, people run away no clearer on what another believes and why, and still continue to make sweeping statements without any understanding. If you aren't part of the solution, you are simply contributing to the problem. You are no closer to understanding my position than when we started, but are content to continue to mischaracterize my position.
"Spurious" means their faith (not to be confused with God's gift of faith) was a forgery. It was a fake, false, phony baloney, good time rock 'n' roll kind of faith. Spurious faith is taught in the Parable of the Four Soils. And another example of fake faith can be seen in John 6 when a bunch of "disciples" followed Jesus over to the other side of the lake with ulterior motives only to eventually walk away from Him. And we can see this kind of fake faith in Judas, king Saul, etc.
Moreover, we can know for certain that their faith was as phony as a three dollar bill because Peter characterized these depraved people as "false prophets" and "false teachers" (2:1). The truth was never in them. The truth never set them free, nor did Jesus ever set them free. They were still in bondage to their sin nature.
You must have missed the last section of my post where I provided a specific example of the TULIP "T" in an attempt to make the discussion specific and afford you the mic to say specifically what you agree or disagree with.
This latest response sounds like you're turning away from specifics and then blaming me for not understanding you.
Last time we got anywhere on the topic, as I've recently linked you back to from another thread, you ended up in Rom8 at minimum to substantiate your view which as I recall is very much unbelieving man not having the ability to believe, or to choose to believe, apart from God giving him a new heart so he can spiritually understand and believe.
Like it or not, it leans TULIP with its (per some) Total Depravity man is a corpse analogy.
exactly
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”
Genesis 1:26 KJV
“And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
Genesis 2:15-17 KJV
you are free to eat of any tree but you must not eat of this tree it will bRing you certain death.
Same kind of thing here
“You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.”
Galatians 5:13 NIV
and look , something still. BRings death if we do it and something still offers life as the other tree in Eden did
“Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die:
but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.”
Romans 8:12-13
still the same principle remains either this is true or it’s not
“Do not be deceived: ( that’s how we lose freedom of our Will by being deceived ) God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.
Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction;
whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.”
Galatians 6:7-9
It’s strange it tells us this type of thing consistently in the Bible’s ot and new but it never explains we’re saved because of a secret election and we really have no choice ….or wil of our own to express it’s almost like we needto ignore what the Bible says and then just say I can’t choose I’m either saved or not . Only biblically that’s ridiculous
Pretty wordy, but spurious seems to equal false, fake, so your meaning is essentially dictionary equivalent. So far so good.
So, how does fake faith "fall away" or would you like to retract or better explain that part?
What’s “ tulip “? I love tulips but I’m pretty sure we aren’t talking gardening here
@Rufus
Do you notice that the NIV (not others I checked) puts this last clause in quotes? Do you think Peter is quoting the Hebrew Scriptures, or something from current culture, or?
As you know, I don't subscribe to TULIP; thus, beginning with TULIP is not helpful. Beginning with what was true of man before sin and after sin is the place to start. As it is these differences which are germane to understanding what is true of man in the here and now, exploring what changed in man as a result of sin can lend some light. Conjuring up terms only leads to the introduction of bias and preconception. So...what changed in man as a result of the fall?
That's how we're supposed to interpret METAPHORS! Obviously, when the Holy Spirit inspired his various writers of scripture use a metaphor to describe man's spiritual condition, he meant for us to draw analogies with what we do know about physical death. But FWers who are very prone to careless interpretations pay virtually no mind to metaphors which would include blindness, deafness, darkness, lostness. You FWers just consider these terms (and others) as so many words that we should not take seriously.
I’ll just go back to gardening and assume it’s flowers
Why the sudden interest in the NIV, which you dislike so much? How come you're not formulating your interpretation from other more favored, literal translations -- or directly from the Gr text?