Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

[Magenta]

I also think believers in God but yet unbelievers in Jesus Christ doing some righteousness pleases Him

Of course you do. Yet Scripture says something completely different. The opposite, in fact.

 

[sawdust]

Here is an example of reality from the modern world.

Putin controls Russia and Zelensky controls Ukraine.

Did God elect Putin and Zelensky?

Is the population of Russia living in a country that God defined by His sovereign will?

I don't see what this has to be with the definition of authority but ...

They're living in countries God defined by His permissible will.

The story of Balaam reveals God's will and way of working.
There is what God wants done. Num.22:12
There is what God allows to be done. Num.22:20 & 35
There is what God will do absolutely. Num.23:7-10

When God says "enough" to Putin and/or Zelenski, no-one will keep them in power.

Our inability to comprehend why the Lord allows what He allows does not mean He has no authority over the situation.

 

[GWH]

Magenta, I don't think you understand what you're talking about.

Yes, and she doesn’t understand that she doesn’t understand.

 

[Cameron143]

Of course you do. Yet Scripture says something completely different. The opposite, in fact.

And yet they lack faith without which it is impossible to please God.

 

[Rufus]

You're butting in again.

When men make up metaphors they normally make them up to fit their interpretations of Scripture. The unbeliever as a corpse is dumb.

You may look around at unbelieving humanity as dust, but I see people who have retained some of the God designed and implemented faculties in God's likeness so on the plus side can reason and choose and love and help others and respond to God's Law working in consciences and respond to spiritual forces and Spiritual restraints, etc...

I disagree with the corpse metaphor you TULIPers coined based upon what I view as poor theology.

So the writers of scriptures made up their own metaphors? You don't believe the Holy Spirit uses all manners of speech to express his truth? And your dead wrong about men forcing metaphors to "fit their interpretations". Look up the definition of "metaphor" already, ad get a clue! This from Dictionary.com:

noun

1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.”
2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.

For example, physical death is separation of the soul from the body.

Spiritual death is separation from God.

Physical death is when the lights go out from a person's eyes, thus such a person is in darkness. The dead see nothing.

Spiritual death is when the light of life leaves the soul of a person, leaving his soul in spiritual darkness.

Those in spiritual darkness are blind and cannot see (understand spiritual truth)

Those who are blind are helplessly lost and cannot find their way, etc., etc. Thanks to Adam, mankind lost its way.

And what I just stated in the last sentence above is precisely why man's ways are NOT in himself but rather are in God's hands (Dan 5:23). If God had let the sons of men to their own ways, mankind would have utterly destroyed itself by now!

 

[Rufus]

I asked you a question already: what was true of man before the fall that wasn't true after the fall?

Oh...that easy for FWer to answer. After Adam fell he bruised his knee slightly, but then picked himself up and dusted himself off and mankind continued on his way. Not much much to see in the Fall of Mankind or its consequences.

 

[Magenta]

And yet they lack faith without which it is impossible to please God.

They contradict that as well. They just said so! Well, before my nap that is LOL

They outright deny and contradict what Scripture says.

And that is what years of schooling gave them. Garbage.

Which they want to teach others.

 

[lrs68]

8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of HaShem.

9 These are the generations of Noah. Noah was in his generations a man righteous and wholehearted; Noah walked with G-d.

 

[Magenta]

Oh...that easy for FWer to answer. After Adam fell he bruised his knee slightly, but then picked himself up and dusted
himself off and mankind continued on his way. Not much much to see in the Fall of Mankind or its consequences.

Nothing to see here folks

 

[studier]

I already understand what you believe, even without any consideration of reformed theology. Thus, reformed theology and Calvinism is unnecessary to the discussion

That was the discussion as it began - how your belief compares to the Calvinism T.

The only reason one brings superfluous into the discussion is to in some way use it discredit another's beliefs.

Per my statement above, it was the discussion and therefore not superfluous. I've left extensive room in discussions with you before to not represent your view as being precisely the same as T and was willing to continue in that vein. You're prejudging motives and wrongly. As far as I'm concerned Cameronism is not TULIPism until if and when it's all played out. Accept this or don't, your choice.

It also evidences bias assumed into the arguments. You may recognize this or not, but it is true.

Yes, I have a bias and so do you and so does most everyone. Do you accept this or is it just others that are biased while you're not?

If I answer your questions directly, you will simply sort the answers according to your existing bias without ever receiving any greater understanding.

Another assumption. If you are able to detail your explanation from Scripture, I will listen as I did before. I don't recall having seen you do much detailed work in Scripture. If I disagree with you in discussing Scripture I will do my best to deal with Scripture in context and seek to point out any insertions or deletions not clearly stated whether by me or you or by anyone else.

When we last discussed and you proffered Rom8 I did just that. I've also done so with 1Cor2:14 on more than one occasion openly. Whether you were involved or not, I don't recall. If I agree or disagree I try to be clear as to why.

At the very least, if you are truly interested in truth, you would want to understand the basis of my conclusions

Meaning your conclusions are Biblical truth or if I'm interested in the truth about your conclusions?

And yet you provide no conclusions even after my asking you for them and asking you to go ahead and approach it via any doctrine you choose as long as we get back to the point of depravity and [free] will where this discussion began

As this isn't the case, my answer would only serve to cement your aforementioned biases and misconceptions. So instead, I presented you with a very real opportunity to learn. Surely something was different in the experience and actions of Adam and Eve after the fall that they never experienced or did before sin. What were these things, why did they occur, and what can we surmise from them?

So, if I'm reading you correctly, I'm not interested in Biblical truth, I have biases and misconceptions about Biblical truth, and you've presented me with an opportunity to learn Biblical truth from you? Yet you're not proposing to be my teacher? And you think I've never studied the doctrine of the fall of mankind?

Are you self-taught meaning you & the Holy Spirit as you seem to propose or partly propose, Cameron? When you speak of Biblical doctrines, who taught you these doctrines? It seems fair to suppose from what you've said that it was not some Reformed teacher teaching Calvinism.

 

[Magenta]

That was the discussion as it began - how your belief compares to the Calvinism T.

Which you refuse to acknowledge has anything to do with the multitude of verses repeatedly given in support.

As usual with you FWers, you ignore reject contradict and outright deny them
while telling us plainly spoken verses do not mean what they say.

 

[Magenta]

I don't recall having seen you do much detailed work in Scripture.

Like your "detailed work" means anything when it amounts rejection of what is plainly spoken?

Get real. Perhaps try opening your eyes once in a while, also.

 

[studier]

So the writers of scriptures made up their own metaphors?

Which is really. not what I said, now, is it.

You don't believe the Holy Spirit uses all manners of speech to express his truth?

Which is really not what I said, now, is it.

And your dead wrong about men forcing metaphors to "fit their interpretations". Look up the definition of "metaphor" already, ad get a clue! This from Dictionary.com:

So defining metaphor means men don't make them up? Where is your reasoning ability and logic?

Have you ever read any arguments against the corpse metaphor? You should branch out a bit.

Does fallen man have consciousness, a conscience with God's Law at work in it, is he responsible for his decisions and choices, did your mother and father love you and provide for you within any semblance of goodness or do you know any unbelievers who love and provide for their children or parents or anybody else? How about you yourself - as an unbeliever did you have no consciousness or conscience or not love your family or your cats or whatever or whoever albeit with an imperfect love, or were you an unconscious corpse with zero responsibility for your decisions and choices?

How many of such questions can be posed to you before you might allow that the unbelieving man is not a corpse and God does not treat him as a corpse?

 

[Cameron143]

That was the discussion as it began - how your belief compares to the Calvinism T.



Per my statement above, it was the discussion and therefore not superfluous. I've left extensive room in discussions with you before to not represent your view as being precisely the same as T and was willing to continue in that vein. You're prejudging motives and wrongly. As far as I'm concerned Cameronism is not TULIPism until if and when it's all played out. Accept this or don't, your choice.



Yes, I have a bias and so do you and so does most everyone. Do you accept this or is it just others that are biased while you're not?



Another assumption. If you are able to detail your explanation from Scripture, I will listen as I did before. I don't recall having seen you do much detailed work in Scripture. If I disagree with you in discussing Scripture I will do my best to deal with Scripture in context and seek to point out any insertions or deletions not clearly stated whether by me or you or by anyone else.

When we last discussed and you proffered Rom8 I did just that. I've also done so with 1Cor2:14 on more than one occasion openly. Whether you were involved or not, I don't recall. If I agree or disagree I try to be clear as to why.



Meaning your conclusions are Biblical truth or if I'm interested in the truth about your conclusions?

And yet you provide no conclusions even after my asking you for them and asking you to go ahead and approach it via any doctrine you choose as long as we get back to the point of depravity and [free] will where this discussion began



So, if I'm reading you correctly, I'm not interested in Biblical truth, I have biases and misconceptions about Biblical truth, and you've presented me with an opportunity to learn Biblical truth from you? Yet you're not proposing to be my teacher? And you think I've never studied the doctrine of the fall of mankind?

Are you self-taught meaning you & the Holy Spirit as you seem to propose or partly propose, Cameron? When you speak of Biblical doctrines, who taught you these doctrines? It seems fair to suppose from what you've said that it was not some Reformed teacher teaching Calvinism.

Simple question: what changed in man due to sin? You profess to having studied the subject, but can't answer a simple question. The answer to the question is the basis for many different doctrines. For instance, what is depravity? What is the extent of depravity? What is man capable of spiritually? How do we know?
To understand what is necessary for God to reconcile man to Himself, one must understand what was broken in man to begin with. You say you've considered the fall. What did you learn?

 

[Magenta]

You say you've considered the fall. What did you learn?

Pelagian heretics learn little to nothing from the fall of man and corruption of all creation.

 

[Cameron143]

Pelagian heretics learn little to nothing from the fall of man and corruption of all creation.

It couldn't have been to much of a problem. It merely required the death of God to accomplish. No bigee.

 

[studier]

Simple question: what changed in man due to sin? You profess to having studied the subject, but can't answer a simple question. The answer to the question is the basis for many different doctrines. For instance, what is depravity? What is the extent of depravity? What is man capable of spiritually? How do we know?
To understand what is necessary for God to be reconciled to Himself, one must understand what was broken in man to begin with. You say you've considered the fall. What did you learn.

I'm not interested in your methods of discussion nor am I interested in the circuitous route you're intent on taking to get to the point. And I think you know this and it's a reason for your pushing for the indirect route. It prevents real discussion about the original topic.

So, I'll go back to the beginning and rest there; your version of depravity is very similar to if not the same as the Calvinistic version of Total Depravity. Where it may or may not differ is undetermined and can remain there.

All done.

 

[Magenta]

I'm not interested in your methods of discussion nor am I interested in the circuitous route you're intent on taking to get to the point. And I think you know this and it's a reason for your pushing for the indirect route. It prevents real discussion about the original topic.

So, I'll go back to the beginning and rest there; your version of depravity is very similar to if not the same as the Calvinistic version of Total Depravity. Where it may or may not differ is undetermined and can remain there.

All done.

Yes, your methodology is plain for all to see. Pretend the other person
has no point to make while you yammer on endlessly about your CDS.

I wonder how many people you fool. But you know the saying. You play the odds.

 

[GWH]

I'm not interested in your methods of discussion nor am I interested in the circuitous route you're intent on taking to get to the point. And I think you know this and it's a reason for your pushing for the indirect route. It prevents real discussion about the original topic.

So, I'll go back to the beginning and rest there; your version of depravity is very similar to if not the same as the Calvinistic version of Total Depravity. Where it may or may not differ is undetermined and can remain there.

All done.

Their route is intended to avoid the main point, which is that it is borderline blasphemous to accuse God even implicitly
of hating the greater half of humanity. That their bias is to believe this says more about their character than it does about God's nature.
How much better and more biblical it is to be biased toward believing that God loves/wants to save every sinner.

Regarding bias, although it probably is impossible to eliminate completely, may I reiterate this about truthseekers:

Truthseekers seek to assume the position or condition of adult innocence (unprejudice/lack of bias). A way to do this is by imagining that one has suddenly begun to exist as a mentally competent or normally intelligent human being (like Adam and Eve in Genesis), then (following concern about physical needs) reflecting on metaphysical questions such as why you were “born” and how you should behave and what you ought to accomplish with your life.

There are only two qualitatively different ways of answering these questions.

One way is by assuming that there is no ultimate “whyness” or purpose beyond physical survival and avoiding pain, so it does not ultimately matter what one believes or does, because humanity merely evolved from eternal energy/matter, into which it “devolves” at death. You may desire for some reason to survive and to save the world, but if life becomes too painful you may wish you were never born and want to destroy the world, because there is no good reason you ought to be like Messiah rather than like Mania or to be loving rather than maniacal. You may believe and act like evil exists or not, because life is a farce or a continual “King of the Hill” (KOTH) struggle against human adversaries and various other types of adversity, having no ultimate or universal moral imperative (UMI).

The second type of answer is that life is NOT a farce—that existence has meaning, and how one believes and behaves does matter for some non-arbitrary reason. This answer seems more appealing to me and almost logically imperative, although some people appear to prefer the paths of nihilism and KOTH (cf. Matt. 13:14-15).

The quest for answere prompted me to identify the Scripture from which my interpretations of GW spring,
and my Top Ten foundational Scriptures/answers in logical order are these:

1. Formerly/at first I was without hope of salvation from meaninglessness and death. (Eph. 3:12b)

2. So I sought salvation and found God. (Matt. 7:7, Heb. 11:6b)

3. The loving God who wants all souls to learn the truth about how to be saved. (1Tim. 2:3-4, John 3:16)

4. Which is to believe that Jesus is Christ, whose death atoned for humanity’s sins. (1Tim. 2:5-6)

5. As taught in all inspired Scripture interpreted in light of this Gospel of salvation. (2Tim. 3:15)

6. Such interpretation of GW also teaches how to be godly after being saved. (2Tim. 3:16-17)

7. Which doctrine Jesus summarized as loving God, oneself and everyone else. (Matt. 22:37-40)

8. And which moral maturity Paul termed as the fruit of the Holy Spirit. (Gal. 5:13-23)

9. That requires persevering in saving faith and learning God’s Word. (Matt. 4:4, 10:22)

10. So that we will grant the prayer of Jesus for us to be one in our witness. (John 17:20-23)

 

[studier]

Their route is intended to avoid the main point, which is that it is borderline blasphemous to accuse God even implicitly
of hating the greater half of humanity. That their bias is to believe this says more about their character than it does about God's nature.
How much better and more biblical it is to be biased toward believing that God loves/wants to save every sinner.

Regarding bias, although it probably is impossible to eliminate completely, may I reiterate this about truthseekers:

Truthseekers seek to assume the position or condition of adult innocence (unprejudice/lack of bias). A way to do this is by imagining that one has suddenly begun to exist as a mentally competent or normally intelligent human being (like Adam and Eve in Genesis), then (following concern about physical needs) reflecting on metaphysical questions such as why you were “born” and how you should behave and what you ought to accomplish with your life.

There are only two qualitatively different ways of answering these questions.

One way is by assuming that there is no ultimate “whyness” or purpose beyond physical survival and avoiding pain, so it does not ultimately matter what one believes or does, because humanity merely evolved from eternal energy/matter, into which it “devolves” at death. You may desire for some reason to survive and to save the world, but if life becomes too painful you may wish you were never born and want to destroy the world, because there is no good reason you ought to be like Messiah rather than like Mania or to be loving rather than maniacal. You may believe and act like evil exists or not, because life is a farce or a continual “King of the Hill” (KOTH) struggle against human adversaries and various other types of adversity, having no ultimate or universal moral imperative (UMI).

The second type of answer is that life is NOT a farce—that existence has meaning, and how one believes and behaves does matter for some non-arbitrary reason. This answer seems more appealing to me and almost logically imperative, although some people appear to prefer the paths of nihilism and KOTH (cf. Matt. 13:14-15).

The quest for answere prompted me to identify the Scripture from which my interpretations of GW spring,
and my Top Ten foundational Scriptures/answers in logical order are these:

1. Formerly/at first I was without hope of salvation from meaninglessness and death. (Eph. 3:12b)

2. So I sought salvation and found God. (Matt. 7:7, Heb. 11:6b)

3. The loving God who wants all souls to learn the truth about how to be saved. (1Tim. 2:3-4, John 3:16)

4. Which is to believe that Jesus is Christ, whose death atoned for humanity’s sins. (1Tim. 2:5-6)

5. As taught in all inspired Scripture interpreted in light of this Gospel of salvation. (2Tim. 3:15)

6. Such interpretation of GW also teaches how to be godly after being saved. (2Tim. 3:16-17)

7. Which doctrine Jesus summarized as loving God, oneself and everyone else. (Matt. 22:37-40)

8. And which moral maturity Paul termed as the fruit of the Holy Spirit. (Gal. 5:13-23)

9. That requires persevering in saving faith and learning God’s Word. (Matt. 4:4, 10:22)

10. So that we will grant the prayer of Jesus for us to be one in our witness. (John 17:20-23)

Thanks for your comments.

I have a question about your list and please correct me wherever I'm off.

I know you're drawing from Scripture, but I get a check in my spirit on your #1.

As I recall, you said you were born into a Christian family and never really knew life apart from God. I was not raised in such a home. I was introduced to Roman Catholicism mainly by a grandmother at a young age and do somewhat remember the amazement at the building and all the display of the priest and service. I soon still very young rebelled to a degree that brought it to a head, and I think my parents determined to not force it on me. I do also recall laying in a field once still very young looking at the skies and clouds - creation - and wondering where it all came from and having a sense of God maybe from the Catholic grandiosity.

30+ years later (and I'm skipping over some interesting events) I don't think I was so much thinking about salvation as I was that life, and humanity made no sense and there had to be more to this. People were just not that impressive. Pursuits were empty. Most "experts" were basically a farce but good at marketing to the masses. I had read the Bible a few times cover to cover some years before. I crashed into the contrite spirit mode, realized extremely clearly that I had made all the decisions that put me where I was, and asked God to take over this thing called life because I could not do it.

So, with that said, do you think we could discuss some about your #1. Maybe I was seeking salvation because that word needs to always be considered in context. My simple request to Him besides taking over, was that I just wanted to know the Truth as I was sick to death of the nonsense of men - the "experts" telling us what to do, how to do it, how to get what we want, how to be happy, how to do this and that and whatever, basically all the bs self-help stuff peddled by people mostly trying to merchandise people. I was also doing well financially and came to realize how fleeting and unfulfilling it was.

It's funny how I'm attempting to discuss this corpse analogy with some. In seminary when exegeting a few books, one of the phrases one of the professors liked to use was "living a death-like life" - which rang true but note the first and last words which I think this corpse nonsense negates. But applying the professor's phrase does apply to the above and to your #1 and to salvation - salvation from living a death-like life - which is more of a meaninglessness than a corpse-like nothingness.

Just some thoughts to try to express why #1 may be seeming a bit off for me.

Thanks again.