Does man have a libertarian free will?

[TheDivineWatermark]

Consider the following...

Regarding the following verse:

2 Corinthians 5:20 -

"Therefore we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God is beseeching through us. We implore on behalf of Christ: Be reconciled [G2644 - καταλλάγητε katallagēte - PASSIVE IMPERATIVE (imperative/command)] to God."

[quoting BibleHub]

"[re: G2644] [...] but the passive is used also where only one ceases to be angry with another and receives him into favor; thus καταλλαγεις, received by Cyrus into favor, Xenophon, an. 1, 6, 1; καταλλάττεται πρός αὐτήν, regained her favor, Josephus, Antiquities 5, 2, 8; and, on the other hand, God is said καταλλαγῆναι τίνι, with whom he ceases to be offended, to whom he grants his favor anew, whose sins he pardons, 2 Macc. 1:5 2Macc. 7:33 2Macc. 8:29; Josephus, Antiquities 6, 7, 4 cf. 7, 8, 4 (so ἐπικαταλλάττεσθαι τίνι, Clement of Rome, 1 Cor. 48, 1 [ET]). In the N. T. God is said καταλλάσσειν ἑαυτῷ τινα, to receive one into his favor (A. V. reconcile one to himself), 2 Corinthians 5:18f (where in the added participles two arguments are adduced which prove that God has done this: first, that he does not impute to men their trespasses; second, that he has deposited the doctrine of reconciliation in the souls of the preachers of the gospel); καταλλαγῆναι τῷ Θεῷ, to be restored to the favor of God, to recover God's favor, Romans 5:10 (but see ἐχθρός, 2); καταλλάγητε τῷ Θεῷ, allow yourselves to be reconciled to God; do not oppose your return into his favor, but lay hold of that favor now offered you, 2 Corinthians 5:20."

[end quoting BibleHub; bold and underline mine]

[^ concerning the "passive IMPERATIVE [/command]"... of which there are a number of them in the NT... 1 Peter 1:15 has one for its verb, for example]

__________

Re: 1 Corinthians 6:11 -

"And such were some of you: but ye were WASHED [MIDDLE voice (the rest of the verbs in this verse are in the PASSIVE, but not here!) G628 - apelousasthe / apolouó]..."

628 [e]
apelousasthe
ἀπελούσασθε ,
you were washed
V-AIM-2P

mid: I wash away [...]

HELPS Word-studies

628 apoloúō (from 575 /apó, "away from" and 3068 /loúō, "wash") – properly, wash away. This strengthened form of 3068 /loúō ("to wash") refers to an entire washing – the complete removal of sin and its debt.

[end quoting from BibleHub; bold and underline mine]

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Of course, not everyone regards Paul's writings as "scripture/the word of God [/authoritative]"...

 

[notuptome]

In other words, free-willers have insisted that their position is correct, without adequate Scriptural support, and we hate what you have to say, so we are going to continue to try to discredit you in any way that we can.

I get it

Listen, I've been a free-willer for most of my Christian life. It's garbage theology..period.

We get back to the same free-willer claim. A man with a heart of stone must squeeze faith and repentance from it, in order to receive a heart of flesh,

Contrast this with Reformed theology. God gives the man a heart of flesh, accompanied by the gospel message, and faith and repentance are produced from it.

Which one is more coherent?
Which one is more God-honoring?

You know where I stand

You have a problem You cannot call others who hold to a biblical view of soteriology and possessing "garbage theology" without placing yourself in the same position.

If you were truly reformed theology you would be much closer to Luther than Calvin. You mask your theology as reformed when it is nothing more than Calvinism and that improperly presented.

Adam had free will to choose to sin. Adam was not beguiled as Eve. Adam choose to sin to be with Eve knowing he would be then in opposition to God the Father. Mans will is made a little lower than the will of the Father but it is in the image of God. Man not only has the ability to choose man has a responsibility to God to choose.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

It takes more than one word (reject) to create context .

garee, my point is where the phrase states "rejected the boulēn of God" [not His OTHER kind-of-will] which Calvinists are continually saying "is not possible" (and try to go on to saying that it must be His OTHER kind-of-will being spoken of here [the kind-of-His-will that CAN be resisted or rejected]... but it ISN'T!... that's ALL I'm pointing out, here! And that only requires looking at/examining that actual PHRASE! "rejected the BOULEN OF GOD" [<---is this possible or NOT, according to this text??])

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

You have a problem You cannot call others who hold to a biblical view of soteriology and possessing "garbage theology" without placing yourself in the same position.

If you were truly reformed theology you would be much closer to Luther than Calvin. You mask your theology as reformed when it is nothing more than Calvinism and that improperly presented.

Adam had free will to choose to sin. Adam was not beguiled as Eve. Adam choose to sin to be with Eve knowing he would be then in opposition to God the Father. Mans will is made a little lower than the will of the Father but it is in the image of God. Man not only has the ability to choose man has a responsibility to God to choose.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Your claims are a strange mixture.

I believe you think by misrepresenting me, you can discredit me.

Luther was, indeed, Reformed, and he believed some of the same things as John Calvin. He was a bit flaky on limited atonement, but he definitely believed in total depravity.

Are you ignorant of the fact that his most famous book is Bondage of the Will, which is on this topic? Luther believed in radical corruption (total depravity).

Adam possessed "original righteousness" and his nature was not affected by the Fall until AFTER the Fall. That is something that Reformed people acknowledge. So, I am not sure why you think my theology needs to be corrected on that.

And, mankind is still in the image of God in a structural sense, but not in a functional sense.

I tend to use the example of a broken mirror. Mankind was meant to reflect God's image to the creation, and to worship and enjoy him forever. In the Fall, it was as if a rock was thrown at this mirror, and it is cracked into a thousand pieces. Sanctification is largely about piecing together this cracked mirror through the transforming power of the Holy Spirit.

I suggest that you read Created in God's Image by Anthony Hoekema if you want to understand the Reformed position on this.

Mankind does have the responsibility to choose to place his faith in Jesus and to repent. However, he is morally incapable of doing this. Regeneration must occur to enable this response. The fact that mankind cannot respond of his own resources is the exact point behind Reformed theology, and a correct knowledge of the fact that regeneration (receiving a heart of flesh) must occur to enable this response humbles the prideful man.

My understanding of Reformed theology is quite adequate. Continue on in your attempts to discredit, though. I wouldn't want to deprive you of your joy.

 

[notuptome]

Your claims are a strange mixture.

I believe you think by misrepresenting me, you can discredit me.

Luther was, indeed, Reformed, and he believed some of the same things as John Calvin. He was a bit flaky on limited atonement, but he definitely believed in total depravity.

Are you ignorant of the fact that his most famous book is Bondage of the Will, which is on this topic? Luther believed in radical corruption (total depravity).

Adam possessed "original righteousness" and his nature was not affected by the Fall until AFTER the Fall. That is something that Reformed people acknowledge. So, I am not sure why you think my theology needs to be corrected on that.

And, mankind is still in the image of God in a structural sense, but not in a functional sense.

I tend to use the example of a broken mirror. Mankind was meant to reflect God's image to the creation, and to worship and enjoy him forever. In the Fall, it was as if a rock was thrown at this mirror, and it is cracked into a thousand pieces. Sanctification is largely about piecing together this cracked mirror through the transforming power of the Holy Spirit.

I suggest that you read Created in God's Image by Anthony Hoekema if you want to understand the Reformed position on this.

Mankind does have the responsibility to choose to place his faith in Jesus and to repent. However, he is morally incapable of doing this. Regeneration must occur to enable this response. The fact that mankind cannot respond of his own resources is the exact point behind Reformed theology, and a correct knowledge of the fact that regeneration (receiving a heart of flesh) must occur to enable this response humbles the prideful man.

My understanding of Reformed theology is quite adequate. Continue on in your attempts to discredit, though. I wouldn't want to deprive you of your joy.

Luther did not believe that a man could not choose to receive Christ. You make total depravity to be total inability to respond to Gods word. You cannot in good conscience limit the ability of Gods word to accomplish that to which He has purposed it. Man cannot save himself and man cannot merit salvation but Gods love for His creation is not limited.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

garee, my point is where the phrase states "rejected the boulēn of God" [not His OTHER kind-of-will] which Calvinists are continually saying "is not possible" (and try to go on to saying that it must be His OTHER kind-of-will being spoken of here [the kind-of-His-will that CAN be resisted or rejected]... but it ISN'T!... that's ALL I'm pointing out, here! And that only requires looking at/examining that actual PHRASE! "rejected the BOULEN OF GOD" [<---is this possible or NOT, according to this text??])

If God is a weak, emasculated god then it is possible to thwart his will.

I will agree to that much.

Obviously I don't believe that.

 

[notuptome]

If God is a weak, emasculated god then it is possible to thwart his will.

I will agree to that much.

Obviously I don't believe that.

It takes human logic to arrive at that conclusion. If God predestines every action then man is not in the image of God but in the image of an animal without anything above instinct.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Luther did not believe that a man could not choose to receive Christ. You make total depravity to be total inability to respond to Gods word. You cannot in good conscience limit the ability of Gods word to accomplish that to which He has purposed it. Man cannot save himself and man cannot merit salvation but Gods love for His creation is not limited.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

God's word alone does nothing...it must be accompanied by regeneration to produce faith and repentance, and it is always effective when God regenerates the person.

And, yes, God's love for his creation is "limited" if you are claiming that he won't exact vengeance upon his enemies. He most certainly will. Apparently you haven't read the Psalms and Revelation. Both are largely about exacting vengeance and wrath upon his enemies.

Why? God's love doesn't trump his holiness and justness, and those who are punished deserve it.

In fact, all deserve it.

You can keep on with verbal wrangling all you want, but God has elected a certain group of individuals, called the elect ,who have been given to the Son, and he atoned for their sins. The Holy Spirit applies the benefits of this atonement, which was actual and not theoretical, to them in time through regeneration, giving them a heart of flesh to replace the heart of stone, and applying all the gifts of the atonement to them. And, they WILL experience glorification at his coming.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

It takes human logic to arrive at that conclusion. If God predestines every action then man is not in the image of God but in the image of an animal without anything above instinct.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

God predestines the salvation of the elect, whom he chose.

Read Romans 8:28-30.

These are part of the teachings of Scripture that free-willers avoid like the plague. The golden chain of redemption.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

It takes human logic to arrive at that conclusion. If God predestines every action then man is not in the image of God but in the image of an animal without anything above instinct.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Who stirred up the Assyrians to attack Israel in Isaiah 10?
Who stirred up Pul and Tilgath-Pilneser to attack Israel in 1 Chronicles 5:26?

God was just as active in the crucifixion of His Son as He is in saving the elect.

 

[notuptome]

God predestines the salvation of the elect, whom he chose.

Read Romans 8:28-30.

These are part of the teachings of Scripture that free-willers avoid like the plague. The golden chain of redemption.

You err when you make this to be predestining salvation to some and excluding others. Eph 1:5 shows our predestination is in Christ not to be in Christ. Only those who are saved are predestined or elect and it is the result of salvation not the causation.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

It takes human logic to arrive at that conclusion. If God predestines every action then man is not in the image of God but in the image of an animal without anything above instinct.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

So, God predestined the actions of multiple people in order to bring about the birth, crucifixion, and death of Jesus.

Were all those people mere animals in your theology?

If God uses individuals to record Scripture, inspiring its transmission down to the word level, then are they mere animals because God used them in that manner?

Your remarks don't even make sense. You are claiming that free will is an irreducible attribute of man. God does, in fact, exercise external influence upon man, and it is not mere suggestion. He does this to believers as well as unbelievers.

Additionally, the goal isn't autonomy. The believer is joined to Christ and lives in union with him. Therefore, your claim that free will is a necessary attribute of humanity is false.

And, the unsaved man is a slave to sin.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

TheDivineWatermark said:
garee, my point is where the phrase states "rejected the boulēn of God" [not His OTHER kind-of-will] which Calvinists are continually saying "is not possible" (and try to go on to saying that it must be His OTHER kind-of-will being spoken of here [the kind-of-His-will that CAN be resisted or rejected]... but it ISN'T!... that's ALL I'm pointing out, here! And that only requires looking at/examining that actual PHRASE! "rejected the BOULEN OF GOD" [<---is this possible or NOT, according to this text??])

If God is a weak, emasculated god then it is possible to thwart his will.

I will agree to that much.

Obviously I don't believe that.

The text says they "rejected the boulen of God" (and does not use the word "thwart" … but "REJECTED" ). So is this possible, according to this text? or is what Calvinists say INSTEAD, true, that it [THIS kind-of-will (of His will)] cannot be rejected or resisted?

Is this text showing (by its own STATED words [the ones that Calvinists/Reformed themselves point to elsewhere]) that God is therefore "weak and emasculated"?? I say, NO THIS TEXT DOES NOT. But you would have to say so, if you were "consistent" (with that statement which is so oft repeated)


[I've listened to a good deal of V.B., and I hate to say it, but he very often sounds as though he is merely parroting the words of other men (not a result of his own study in Scripture itself)]

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

You err when you make this to be predestining salvation to some and excluding others. Eph 1:5 shows our predestination is in Christ not to be in Christ. Only those who are saved are predestined or elect and it is the result of salvation not the causation.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

This is the false view of Karl Barth called corporate election.

It is true that those who are elected are saved to be joined to Jesus in a life-giving union. However, it is not true that believers choose whether they are elected by their choice.

In other words, what Barth (and other free-willers) try to do is deny God's election of a particular people for himself, to be given to the Son.

By the way, Barth claimed parts of the Bible were not inspired, and there were errors and contradictions in Scripture. Therefore, he is not a credible source of information. This is besides the fact that he was living in an intimate relationship for years with both his wife and assistant in the same house. His immorality ruined many a Barthian from their enchanted reverence of him, once it came to light.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

The text says they "rejected the boulen of God" (and does not use the word "thwart" … but "REJECTED" ). So is this possible, according to this text? or is what Calvinists say INSTEAD, true, that it [THIS kind-of-will (of His will)] cannot be rejected or resisted?

Is this text showing (by its own STATED words [the ones that Calvinists/Reformed themselves point to elsewhere]) that God is therefore "weak and emasculated"?? I say, NO THIS TEXT DOES NOT. But you would have to say so, if you were "consistent" (with that statement which is so oft repeated)


[I've listened to a good deal of V.B., and I hate to say it, but he very often sounds as though he is merely parroting the words of other men (not a result of his own study in Scripture itself)]

I have already explained the difference between the decretive vs. prescriptive will of God.

If you want to believe in an emasculated god who cannot accomplish his purposes, go ahead. It's a pretty high price to pay for maintaining free will theism.

Regarding Voddie Baucham, he's credible to me but of course I know free-willers are not going to have anything good to say about Reformed preachers.

 

[notuptome]

I have already explained the difference between the decretive vs. prescriptive will of God.

If you want to believe in an emasculated god who cannot accomplish his purposes, go ahead. It's a pretty high price to pay for maintaining free will theism.

Regarding Voddie Baucham, he's credible to me but of course I know free-willers are not going to have anything good to say about Reformed preachers.

Well you ought to study how God relented destroying Israel and raising up a people through Moses because Moses interceded on behalf of those people.

I do not expect you to understand the will of God. Yours is a fatalistic view and not one of hope.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

Who stirred up the Assyrians to attack Israel in Isaiah 10?
Who stirred up Pul and Tilgath-Pilneser to attack Israel in 1 Chronicles 5:26?

God was just as active in the crucifixion of His Son as He is in saving the elect.

@notuptome

Care to address post # 251?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

God predestines the salvation of the elect, whom he chose.
Read Romans 8:28-30.
These are part of the teachings of Scripture that free-willers avoid like the plague. The golden chain of redemption.

I covered that point in Post #201 : https://christianchat.com/threads/does-man-have-a-libertarian-free-will.188229/post-4070977


And I asked you directly, if you could address that post, in my post to you, Post #217 (which you haven't... which is not surprising, actually, hate to say ) Just don't try to say that I have "avoided it like the plague"

(I've repeatedly posted that particular post/point [in various threads], and no one ever cares to examine the Scriptures on that! but instead are just content to repeat catch-phrases)

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

So, God predestined the actions of multiple people in order to bring about the birth, crucifixion, and death of Jesus.

Were all those people mere animals in your theology?

If God uses individuals to record Scripture, inspiring its transmission down to the word level, then are they mere animals because God used them in that manner?

Your remarks don't even make sense. You are claiming that free will is an irreducible attribute of man. God does, in fact, exercise external influence upon man, and it is not mere suggestion. He does this to believers as well as unbelievers.

Additionally, the goal isn't autonomy. The believer is joined to Christ and lives in union with him. Therefore, your claim that free will is a necessary attribute of humanity is false.

And, the unsaved man is a slave to sin.

The same sun that melts the snow hardens the clay.

God was just as active in hardening ppl’s hearts as He is in giving them a new one.