Does man have a libertarian free will?

[TheDivineWatermark]

Luke 14 -

21 And the servant having come, reported these things to his master. Then the master of the house, having become angry, said to his servant, ‘Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in here the poor and crippled and blind and lame.’

22 And the servant said, ‘Sir, as you did command, it has been done, and there is still room.’

23 And the master said to the servant, ‘Go out into the highways and hedges and compel them to come in, so that my house may be filled. 24 For I say to all of you that not one of those men having been invited [G2564] will taste my supper.’”

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

And I can't remember if you were a Member back when I posted the following (in some old thread around here ):

[quoting that post]

Luke 7:29-30 - "29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. 30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel [G1012 - boulēn] of God against [as to / unto] themselves, being not baptized [having not been baptized] of him."

--G1012 - boulēn - used also in Ephesians 1:11, the verse Calvinists use to say "no one can reject/resist" THIS, God's decreed [determined-plan] will [G1012]... yet Luke 7:30 clearly says the Pharisees and lawyers "rejected the boulēn G1012 of God..." (which, for that time then in existence, the decreed-will of God was: "the baptism of John" [see Acts 18:25,26-27 re: 'the way of God more perfectly']).

The point being, they did indeed "reject the boulēn G1012 of God". Something that Calvinists say is impossible.

From Bible Hub:

Definition: counsel, deliberate wisdom, decree.

HELPS Word-studies

1012 boulḗ – properly, a resolved plan, used particularly of the immutable aspect of God's plan – purposefully arranging all physical circumstances, which guarantees every scene of life works to His eternal purpose.

This level of God's plan (1012 /boulḗ) demonstrates He is the Lord of history, i.e. always in charge!
[1012 (boulḗ) is more than God's immutable plan of physical circumstances. It always also includes the Lord's purpose in them – and hence arranging all the physical scenes of history before creation (Ps 139:16; Jn 1:3).]

[and, quoting from BibleHub]

HELPS Word-studies

Cognate: 1014 boúlomai – to plan with full resolve (determination). See 1012 (boulē).
1014 /boúlomai ("resolutely plan") is a strong term that underlines the predetermined (and determined) intention driving the planning (wishing, resolving). In contrast, 2309 (thélō) focuses on the desire ("wishfulness") behind making an offer (cf. TDNT, 1, 629).

[While God's "thelō-offers" can be rejected (see 2309 /thélō), His 1014 /boúlomai ("planning") always works out His purpose, especially in conjunction with presetting the physical scenes of history.]

[end quotes from BibleHub]


They clearly "rejected the boulēn G1012 of God," according to that text.

One might think to answer, well they are just doing what comes naturally (to natural man), but that is to miss the point. The point is, Calvinists say that "no one can reject/resist-->His 'boule / boulen [G1012]' will (that is to say, His 'decreed' will)." But Luke 7:30 says these clearly did so.

And I agree with those saying that "Calvinism" and "Arminianism" are NOT the only options.

[end quoting that post]

I don't think you're ignorant of the different senses of the will of God, but I'll repeat this explanation for others.

There is a decretive will of God, which means that God has decreed something and it WILL come to pass because God is sovereign and not some impotent god.

There is a prescriptive will of God, which means that God has expressed his will, such as "do not commit adultery", but he knows that some will break it.

Since I don't worship an impotent god, my position would be that the verse above MUST be referring to his prescriptive will.

By the way, I'd really be ashamed to claim that God's decretive will fails, as you just did. If you want to worship an impotent god, then go ahead..I don't.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

What good is it going to do to quote a dispensationalist Plymouth Brethren commentator to me? You might as well quote Dave Hunt
I could quote a dozen Reformed guys who would not agree with him.
Even my own experience doesn't agree with him.

What I think you are doing here is, instead of reading the point he's actually making, you are instead attempting to knock down a straw man (something I've not even SAID )

You guys are so enslaved by your free-willer traditions that you won't be convinced by Scripture itself, either. You'll wrangle out of it by doing some incoherent word study or quoting one of the guys from your tradition, and simply deny it

I've not even mentioned anything whatsoever about the term "FREE-will" (which I've said in past posts, I do not believe to be an accurate term... perhaps you recall... I think YOU may have even "thumbs-up'd" my post about that, if memory serves)

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

I don't think you're ignorant of the different senses of the will of God, but I'll repeat this explanation for others.
There is a decretive will of God, which means that God has decreed something and it WILL come to pass because God is sovereign and not some impotent god.
There is a prescriptive will of God, which means that God has expressed his will, such as "do not commit adultery", but he knows that some will break it.

Let me ask you (and you might say, "no, there isn't"), but would you say there is a distinct Greek word for each of the above-mentioned two??

It is my understanding that "boule/boulen" [per my post] IS His "decretive" [/decree-] type will... that was my point in that post

Since I don't worship an impotent god, my position would be that the verse above MUST be referring to his prescriptive will.

By the way, I'd really be ashamed to claim that God's decretive will fails, as you just did. If you want to worship an impotent god, then go ahead..I don't.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Let me ask you (and you might say, "no, there isn't"), but would you say there is a distinct Greek word for each of the above-mentioned two??

It is my understanding that "boule/boulen" [per my post] IS His "decretive" [/decree-] type will... that was my point in that post

I disagree. The word "will" is simply used as one acceptable translation.

I think you may misunderstand how to use word studies, too. Word studies consider the particular authors' preferences. One author might use words in one way, and another might use the same word in a slightly different way. So you have to understand the authors' preferences.

That is why I wouldn't make assertions on my own regarding an authors' word choices. I would listen to the opinion of a biblical theologian like DA Carson on this, because he is more familiar with each specific author and their usage of words.

I wouldn't accept my own views or the views of someone who doesn't know Greek or Hebrew at a high level of proficiency (over a decade) concerning such nuances. The dolt who led a cult I was involved with, as a young man, was such a person who made such assertions when he never even went to seminary and didn't know much beyond how to use Strong's or some other concordance.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Fine, but I did put where the definition of "boule/boulen" had under it: "decree"

and also this quote (in part, here):

In contrast, 2309 (thélō) focuses on the desire ("wishfulness") behind making an offer (cf. TDNT, 1, 629).

[While God's "thelō-offers" can be rejected (see 2309 /thélō), […]

...and goes on to make the point regarding the OTHER of the two words.

These seem to be the very TWO ideas YOU presented a couple posts ago, so I'm not sure why you would be disagreeing here, on this point.

[other than the fact that Calvinists like to ignore the actual point being SAID in Luke 7:30 ]

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Fine, but I did put where the definition of "boule/boulen" had under it: "decree"

and also this quote (in part, here):



...and goes on to make the point regarding the OTHER of the two words.

These seem to be the very TWO ideas YOU presented a couple posts ago, so I'm not sure why you would be disagreeing here, on this point.

[other than the fact that Calvinists like to ignore the actual point being SAID in Luke 7:30 ]

I don't have any problem with Luke 7:30.

Like I said, there is the decretive and prescriptive will of God.

Their rebellion against God's prescriptive will ultimately conforms to his decretive will.

For example, Adam and Eve rebelled against God in the Garden of Eden. However, through this rebellion, God's virtues such as mercy and justice will be made more fully evident for all to see. And, the resulting suffering is used to conform the believers to the image of Christ.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Luke 3 -

2 during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came upon John son of Zechariah in the wilderness.

3 And he went into all the region surrounding the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for [/unto/into - eis] forgiveness of sins, 4 as it has been written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet:

“The voice of one crying in the wilderness,

‘Prepare the way of the Lord;

make His paths straight.’



[was this known as "the baptism of John" (as in the other Lk7:30 passage) or something distinct from it?]


7 So he was saying to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “Offspring of vipers, who forewarned you to flee from the coming wrath?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

I don't have any problem with Luke 7:30.
Like I said, there is the decretive and prescriptive will of God.
Their rebellion against God's prescriptive will ultimately conforms to his decretive will.

Well, that is why I specifically worded it in the following way (if you can address that, I'd be glad of it... because the above quoted portion DOES NOT ):

[quoting my earlier post]

They clearly "rejected the boulēn G1012 of God," according to that text.

One might think to answer, well they are just doing what comes naturally (to natural man), but that is to miss the point. The point is, Calvinists say that "no one can reject/resist-->His 'boule / boulen [G1012]' will (that is to say, His 'decreed' will)." But Luke 7:30 says these clearly did so.

[end quoting that post]

...with "boule/boulen" being His "DECRETIVE [/decreed]" will (rather than the other kind!)


"But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the counsel [boulen/boule] of God as to themselves, not having been baptized by him."

[see again Lk3!]

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Well, that is why I specifically worded it in the following way (if you can address that, I'd be glad of it... because the above quoted portion DOES NOT ):

[quoting my earlier post]

They clearly "rejected the boulēn G1012 of God," according to that text.

One might think to answer, well they are just doing what comes naturally (to natural man), but that is to miss the point. The point is, Calvinists say that "no one can reject/resist-->His 'boule / boulen [G1012]' will (that is to say, His 'decreed' will)." But Luke 7:30 says these clearly did so.

[end quoting that post]

...with "boule/boulen" being His "DECRETIVE [/decreed]" will (rather than the other kind!)

OK, but I don't agree with your claim in that regard.

If you look at the use of the word, it is also used concerning humans, who can't decree anything in the same infallible sense as God.

You should really know that...it was used of soldiers that Paul had interaction with. They could not exercise decrees in the same infallible sense as God.

That's why I don't like to parse out the claims of people unless I know they are thorough in their examination and have considered the possibility that they are wrong. If I did that, I'd be wasting hours on a chat forum confirming the work of others that I don't even know, nor have confidence in.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ I had added to the bottom of that post you quoted, "see again Lk3!" (I quoted THAT section, vv. 2-4,7, in a previous post, which verses are VERY PERTINENT to this subject! : Post #228 - https://christianchat.com/threads/does-man-have-a-libertarian-free-will.188229/post-4071625 )

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

^ I had added to the bottom of that post you quoted, "see again Lk3!" (I quoted THAT section, vv. 2-4,7, in a previous post, which verses are VERY PERTINENT to this subject! : Post #228 - https://christianchat.com/threads/does-man-have-a-libertarian-free-will.188229/post-4071625 )

man..I'm getting tired of this convo and my neck is hurting

Show me mercy.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

OK, but I don't agree with your claim in that regard.

If you look at the use of the word, it is also used concerning humans, who can't decree anything in the same infallible sense as God.

The text states they "rejected the boule/boulen OF GOD" (THAT is what I'm pointing out that it SAYS LOL).

So what, if it's used elsewhere of PERSONS who are NOT God (HERE it IS! and this is what I'm pointing to!)

You should really know that...it was used of soldiers that Paul had interaction with. They could not exercise decrees in the same infallible sense as God.

Whoop-dee-doo!

That's why I don't like to parse out the claims of people unless I know they are thorough in their examination and have considered the possibility that they are wrong. If I did that, I'd be wasting hours on a chat forum confirming the work of others that I don't even know, nor have confidence in.

Alls ya hafta do is read the text... and then acknowledge the very distinctions in the "will" words that YOU even spoke of... and determine that THIS one in THIS text (Lk7:30) is "boule/boulen / DECRETIVE / DECREED" will... and then see what Luke 3:2-4,7 had to say ABOUT this very thing... and you can SEE FOR YOURSELF that what I am pointing out is as I've said (and not what some of your posts have SKEWED it to say!)

Yes, I can see why you are fatigued!




LOL, I need to go eat my pre-dinner dinner. Nice talkin' with you again!

 

[garee]

...even Pharaoh was a grown man when he "hardened his heart" (it would seem odd for one to "harden" an already-stone-from-birth[-or-conception-even] heart, wouldn't it?)-- 1 Samuel 6:6 , Exodus 8:32; and Romans 1 says [of some] "they BECAME futile in their thinking and their foolish heart was darkened"--the whole flow of the context shows a downward spiral rather than indicating that "a reprobate heart" is a "starting-point," so to speak--It was some time back that I posted Wm Kelly's Commentary on one particular section of Romans 1 and what that speaks to specifically... I'll try to hunt for that and post it (probably much later tonight, or possibly even tomorrow... we'll see

In the case of the Pharaoh hardening his heart it simply means he did beleive God not seen (no faith) . It is God alone who can make our heart soft giving it rest.

But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth. For he performeth the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him. Therefore am I troubled at his presence: when I consider, I am afraid of him. For God maketh my heart soft, and the Almighty troubleth me: Job 23:13-16

Hebrews 4 King James Version (KJV) Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts

Hard heart = unbelief no faith in God not seen . And therefore no gospel rest

 

[garee]

And I can't remember if you were a Member back when I posted the following (in some old thread around here ):

[quoting that post]

Luke 7:29-30 - "29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. 30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel [G1012 - boulēn] of God against [as to / unto] themselves, being not baptized [having not been baptized] of him."

--G1012 - boulēn - used also in Ephesians 1:11, the verse Calvinists use to say "no one can reject/resist" THIS, God's decreed [determined-plan] will [G1012]... yet Luke 7:30 clearly says the Pharisees and lawyers "rejected the boulēn G1012 of God..." (which, for that time then in existence, the decreed-will of God was: "the baptism of John" [see Acts 18:25,26-27 re: 'the way of God more perfectly']).

The point being, they did indeed "reject the boulēn G1012 of God". Something that Calvinists say is impossible.

I would think we would look for the gospel message rather than cherry picking a word and making the whole point of the discourse to no effect .

Yes they rejected the gospel not mixing what was heard with faith (the unseen) their heart remained hard in unbelief. They as a brood of vipers wanted nothing to do with a God not seen

God is of one mind and always does whatsoever his soul pleases. He takes no council with men.

The point being, they did indeed "reject God the determinist. It was his decision not to give them His faith be which they could believe. Their hearts remained hard in unbelief.

As many as the father gave to the Son they alone can come as the father draws them . No one more or one less.

And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.Luke 7: 29 -30

Jesus informs us to be "child like". Have the faith of God in what you hear. Not if you do not weep for our kind of music we will take our flutes and go home . Not Childish . Again those who refused to hear the gospel

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

And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like? They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept.Luke 7: 29 -30

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

...even Pharaoh was a grown man when he "hardened his heart" (it would seem odd for one to "harden" an already-stone-from-birth[-or-conception-even] heart, wouldn't it?)-- 1 Samuel 6:6 , Exodus 8:32; and Romans 1 says [of some] "they BECAME futile in their thinking and their foolish heart was darkened"--the whole flow of the context shows a downward spiral rather than indicating that "a reprobate heart" is a "starting-point," so to speak--It was some time back that I posted Wm Kelly's Commentary on one particular section of Romans 1 and what that speaks to specifically... I'll try to hunt for that and post it (probably much later tonight, or possibly even tomorrow... we'll see

In the case of the Pharaoh hardening his heart it simply means he did beleive God not seen (no faith) . It is God alone who can make our heart soft giving it rest.

But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth. For he performeth the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him. Therefore am I troubled at his presence: when I consider, I am afraid of him. For God maketh my heart soft, and the Almighty troubleth me: Job 23:13-16

Hebrews 4 King James Version (KJV) Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts

Hard heart = unbelief no faith in God not seen . And therefore no gospel rest

William Kelly has no standing before me. He is a Plymouth Brethren dispensationalist.

I have come to understand that the denial of the radical corruption of the Fall is the fundamental issue between me and free-willers. They may acknowledge "partial corruption" but not radical corruption.

Therefore, their understanding of man's spiritual state, outside of Christ, and their denial of the need for a radical transformation is the real issue. They are overly optimistic about man's nature, and underestimate what needs to be done in order to bring this person into the spiritual realm.

This leads me to believe that they don't understand the nature of their own selves apart from Christ (assuming they are saved).

Here's a video which covers this in great form:

As I have said over and over again, the free-willer theology is defective. They propose that the sinner, with a heart of stone, must dredge up faith and repentance in order to receive a heart of flesh. In reality, God gives the person a heart of flesh, which produces faith and repentance. Until they have this heart of flesh, they are spiritually dead and unable to do anything for themselves.

It's as simple as that. You guys are not going to "re-educate" me. I know what the truth is.

I don't need your Plymouth Brethren free-willer, dispensationalist theology to educate me. I can find a dozen Reformed commentators who would disagree with him. So, why would you bring him up to me?

I know the theology is backwards. I'm not a decisional regenerationist. I held that theology for over a decade, and realize that it is backwards now.

 

[garee]

William Kelly has no standing before me. He is a Plymouth Brethren dispensationalist.

I have come to understand that the denial of the radical corruption of the Fall is the fundamental issue between me and free-willers. They may acknowledge "partial corruption" but not radical corruption.

Therefore, their understanding of man's spiritual state, outside of Christ, and their denial of the need for a radical transformation is the real issue. They are overly optimistic about man's nature, and underestimate what needs to be done in order to bring this person into the spiritual realm.

This leads me to believe that they don't understand the nature of their own selves apart from Christ (assuming they are saved).

Here's a video which covers this in great form:

As I have said over and over again, the free-willer theology is defective. They propose that the sinner, with a heart of stone, must dredge up faith and repentance in order to receive a heart of flesh. In reality, God gives the person a heart of flesh, which produces faith and repentance. Until they have this heart of flesh, they are spiritually dead and unable to do anything for themselves.

It's as simple as that. You guys are not going to "re-educate" me. I know what the truth is.

I don't need your Plymouth Brethren free-willer, dispensationalist theology to educate me. I can find a dozen Reformed commentators who would disagree with him. So, why would you bring him up to me?

I know the theology is backwards. I'm not a decisional regenerationist. I held that theology for over a decade, and realize that it is backwards now.

Yes backwards, upside down.

Free will to a new creature(Christian) is the God given ability to move and do the will of our father in heaven and finish it .

Freely he gave freely we have received .

Its the kind of food the apostles knew not of in the beginning. And therefore could not cast out the lying spirits. Not mixing what they did hear with the faith of Christ who lives in those who do believe

I got saved in a Plymouth Brethren atmosphere (a member 25 years). They do offer the gospel so its not so much a salvation issue .But more of how can we hear God not seen? And not men seen.

The way they view the Jew as to how they are used to represent the whole of mankind is one of the differences. The reformation has come.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

William Kelly has no standing before me. He is a Plymouth Brethren dispensationalist.
I have come to understand that the denial of the radical corruption of the Fall is the fundamental issue between me and free-willers. They may acknowledge "partial corruption" but not radical corruption.

...and of course this wasn't even the point Kelly was making there, but since you refuse to read those 4 paragraphs, you'll never know...

lol

 

[notuptome]

William Kelly has no standing before me. He is a Plymouth Brethren dispensationalist.

I have come to understand that the denial of the radical corruption of the Fall is the fundamental issue between me and free-willers. They may acknowledge "partial corruption" but not radical corruption.

Therefore, their understanding of man's spiritual state, outside of Christ, and their denial of the need for a radical transformation is the real issue. They are overly optimistic about man's nature, and underestimate what needs to be done in order to bring this person into the spiritual realm.

This leads me to believe that they don't understand the nature of their own selves apart from Christ (assuming they are saved).

Here's a video which covers this in great form:

As I have said over and over again, the free-willer theology is defective. They propose that the sinner, with a heart of stone, must dredge up faith and repentance in order to receive a heart of flesh. In reality, God gives the person a heart of flesh, which produces faith and repentance. Until they have this heart of flesh, they are spiritually dead and unable to do anything for themselves.

It's as simple as that. You guys are not going to "re-educate" me. I know what the truth is.

I don't need your Plymouth Brethren free-willer, dispensationalist theology to educate me. I can find a dozen Reformed commentators who would disagree with him. So, why would you bring him up to me?

I know the theology is backwards. I'm not a decisional regenerationist. I held that theology for over a decade, and realize that it is backwards now.

Many here continue to show you that you are wrong and that your opinion is not supported by sound biblical exegesis.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Many here continue to show you that you are wrong and that your opinion is not supported by sound biblical exegesis.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

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