Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

[studier]

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.

Deliberate is harsh and false, especially after I detailed the ambiguity.
You'd have to identify the patronizing for me.
We're not remotely touching on deep things that I mentioned to @Rufus that are way more interesting than this repetitive TULIP stuff, Pelagian, Arminian, Free-Grace, etc. stuff. Do you enjoy this merry-go-round?

 

[studier]

Find a new pal. Make up labels for them.

Seems it gets tough when you see TULIP detailed and may note that your version of depravity well-compares to it. Embrace it or explain what you disagree with. Quack like @GWH does.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

You're dead wrong! When I make the claim (expressed negatively) that Adam was NOT included in God's Reconciliation decree in Gen 3:5, and that there is NO biblical evidence whatsoever to support he exercised any faith, I'm arguing from FACTS since there are no passages to refute my negative claims. But this is not an argument from silence because I'm basing my negative claim on the FACTS of the positive evidence for Eve, for which such facts are totally absent for Adam. Therefore, this absence of evidence does in fact support my claim! The absence is "scriptural support"; for stark contrasts actually do exist in the biblical text between A&E !

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.

Conversely, an argument from silence is when people base their belief on some imagined or fictional hypothesis that have no basis in textual facts . For example, if I said, "The post-fall scripture narrative doesn't say that Adam rejected God's atoning provision didn't save continued in his unbelief after he sinned", this would be an argument from silence since Scripture does explicitly tell us that God reconciled Eve unto himself and she exercised faith subsequent to her reconciliation. Therefore, the exegetical observation I make about Adam is legitimate. It's legitimate to ask, "Why isn't there positive evidence for Adam as there is for Eve?" The whole point to exegesis is to extract from the text what is explicitly stated or logically implied in the text.

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.

And the fact that neither A or E outwardly rejected God's coverings does not necessarily speak to what was in their heart. After all, A&E FEARED God (and his impending judgment), for after they sinned they ran and hid from Him.

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.

The only thing they had in mind was to distance themselves from Him. Adam, in his fear, was not likely to be openly defiant towards the being who created him; but that doesn't necessarily translate into him sporting an equally compliant heart. Sin in its essence is deceitful! Adam paid "lip service" to God by donning the coverings God provided but this doesn't mean that he had a sincere, repenting, believing heart for or toward Him.

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

For your info, the entire planet is filled with HYPOCRITES! It's one of the pernicious effects of sin!

Finally, if we take your lame objection about the "sufficiency" of God's atoning provision to its logical conclusion, then we'd have to logically conclude that Christ's atoning sacrifice on the Cross was a HUGE NOTHINGBURGER,

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.

since FWers tell us that He died for all men w/o exception, yet only a small remnant is actually being saved. Christ utterly failed to save each and every person in the world, even though FWers allege that was his mission according to Jn 3:17. His work clearly didn't cut it. It was not sufficient, going by your logic. If we go the by numbers, Christ's Cross work was an epic fail!

rolleyes ... more oral dysentery from Rufus.

As stated earlier, appealing only to one track of salvation (the Savior's Provision) does not and cannot tell the entire story since there is a second track: Sinners' Response. We have Eve's Response of faith and we know God reconciled her to Himself when He decreed enmity between the devil and herself. So get busy and tell us to whose seed does Adam belong and provide textual evidence that he exercised faith, as Eve did.

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.
.

 

[Cameron143]

Deliberate is harsh and false, especially after I detailed the ambiguity.
You'd have to identify the patronizing for me.
We're not remotely touching on deep things that I mentioned to @Rufus that are way more interesting than this repetitive TULIP stuff, Pelagian, Arminian, Free-Grace, etc. stuff. Do you enjoy this merry-go-round?

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

 

[GWH]

Can we NOT exercise MFW?

 

[Magenta]

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

Their derangement syndrome is on display for all to see, and they use it as an excuse not to address the Scriptures, which routinely get ignored, contradicted and outright denied in favour of simply labelling them with their favourite pejoratives, so they can be tossed aside. Pretty pathetic. Very sad also to see the denials of the Spiritual elements present in our salvation. What these people who repeatedly assert this untruth do is simply expose the fact that God has not revealed Himself to them. However, it is a promise He has made in His revealed written Word to us. Many affirm that He keeps His promises. I hope nobody listens to those who claim He does not.

 

[GWH]

Find a new pal. Make up labels for them.

Okay, but I encourage you to have the courage of your convictions like Rufus, who proudly proclaims his belief
that God effectively hates humanity He does not efficaciously elect. None of that "hate the sin but love the sinner" for him!
Or like Mag, who is not shy about posting pictures of pretty T ladies who presumably were saved because of U and I,
with LP thrown in for good measure.

 

[GWH]

Their derangement syndrome is on display for all to see, and they use it as an excuse not to address the Scriptures, which routinely get ignored, contradicted and outright denied in favour of simply labelling them with their favourite pejoratives, so they can be tossed aside. Pretty pathetic. Very sad also to see the denials of the Spiritual elements present in our salvation. What these people who repeatedly assert this untruth do is simply expose the fact that God has not revealed Himself to them. However, it is a promise He has made in His revealed written Word to us. Many affirm that He keeps His promises. I hope nobody listens to those who claim He does not.

What Scripture would you like us to address?

BTW, FYI, Pelagianism emphasizes human free will and denies original sin, while Arminianism acknowledges original sin and the need for God's grace but maintains that humans have the ability to resist or accept God's offer of salvation. MFWism is closer to the latter,
but the belief is based on GW rather than on a theologian.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

They are freed to receive the gift of salvation. They already continue in unbelief.

did all of them continue in unbelief. or did some repent and come to faith?

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

Their derangement syndrome is on display for all to see, and they use it as an excuse not to address the Scriptures, which routinely get ignored, contradicted and outright denied in favour of simply labelling them with their favourite pejoratives, so they can be tossed aside. Pretty pathetic. Very sad also to see the denials of the Spiritual elements present in our salvation. What these people who repeatedly assert this untruth do is simply expose the fact that God has not revealed Himself to them. However, it is a promise He has made in His revealed written Word to us. Many affirm that He keeps His promises. I hope nobody listens to those who claim He does not.

ouch.

one of the reasons I do not like thes conversation. attack attack.

and ignore the fact we may be doing this very thing ourselves.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

What Scripture would you like us to address?

BTW, FYI, Pelagianism emphasizes human free will and denies original sin, while Arminianism acknowledges original sin and the need for God's grace but maintains that humans have the ability to resist or accept God's offer of salvation. MFWism is closer to the latter,
but the belief is based on GW rather than on a theologian.

can we discuss the word and not ISMS.

I think discussing ISMS is what gets us here. we are blinded by the ism, and can't see past it

 

[studier]

your claim fails.

You made no "legitimate" "exegetical observation"

all you have done is state your claim ... then beat your chest

which does not withstand even the slightest scrutiny without you throwing a conniption fit.

more re-writing of Scripture by Rufus

rolleyes ... talk about an "argument from silence"

excuse me??? that you can even consider such an abominable thought is horrid

rolleyes ... more oral dysentery from Rufus.

more argument from silence

You engage in tactics of which you accuse others.

which has been categorically rejected by you or completely ignored because you have no Scriptural refutation.

You can disagree all the livelong day and continue on in your "argument from silence"

Pretty well sums up discussions with @Rufus on most any topic Biblical.

 

[studier]

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

At least you know what you're here for. I'm still trying to figure it out. But for a few posters, this is a crazy place.

 

[studier]

can we discuss the word and not ISMS.

I think discussing ISMS is what gets us here. we are blinded by the ism, and can't see past it

Some of us have tried to deal only with Scripture. It's pretty tough around here.

 

[cv5]

What Scripture would you like us to address?

BTW, FYI, Pelagianism emphasizes human free will and denies original sin, while Arminianism acknowledges original sin and the need for God's grace but maintains that humans have the ability to resist or accept God's offer of salvation. MFWism is closer to the latter,
but the belief is based on GW rather than on a theologian.

Pretty much all of Majenta's postulates have been debunked. Over and over again.

 

[Cameron143]

can we discuss the word and not ISMS.

Some of us have tried to deal only with Scripture. It's pretty tough around here.

At least you know what you're here for. I'm still trying to figure it out. But for a few posters, this is a crazy place.

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.

 

[GWH]

Pretty much all of Majenta's postulates have been debunked. Over and over again.

Well, she is like Cam and will rarely postulate what she believes other than the T,
and she has never agreed to study systematically one of the Scripts in her pics,
so I presented a passage from a pic and she was probably mortified to see
that in context it supported MFW--which may be why she is reluctant to try again.

 

[Cameron143]

Okay, but I encourage you to have the courage of your convictions like Rufus, who proudly proclaims his belief
that God effectively hates humanity He does not efficaciously elect. None of that "hate the sin but love the sinner" for him!
Or like Mag, who is not shy about posting pictures of pretty T ladies who presumably were saved because of U and I,
with LP thrown in for good measure.

Good morning king of insults. For someone who professes to desire unity and believes God loves everyone, you do a poor job of promoting unity and exercising love towards others. Perhaps your convictions are posted well in words, but lack the commensurate exercise. Just a thought.
Grace and peace.

 

[Cameron143]

did all of them continue in unbelief. or did some repent and come to faith?

Sure some come to faith.

 

[GWH]

ouch.

one of the reasons I do not like thes conversation. attack attack.

and ignore the fact we may be doing this very thing ourselves.

Yes, but I am not part of "we", because I continually encourage us all to study Scripture
instead of playing verbal ping-pong or tar-baby with the goal of achieving spiritual unity.