Does man have free will to choose salvation?

[jasonc]

If God doesn't act first no man by nature seeks God.its because He first loved us .

 

[electedbyHim]

You know, some people deny free will, people from both Christians, atheists and followers of other religions, therefore the existence of free will must be affirmed. As for free will to choose salvation, well, Jesus once asked this man before he performed a miracle - "do you WANT to be made well?" He had to choose to be made well, Jesus asked for his consent, salvation is not bargained or forced upon. I think that pretty much answers your question.

Notice the man confessed his own complete inability.

John 5:7 The sick man answered Him, “Sir, I have no man to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up, but while I am coming, another steps down before me.”

 

[Tenchi]

Plenty of scriptures. but you do not accept them.

No, it's not that I don't accept them; it's that I don't accept your theological "spin" on them.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—

As I already pointed out, this verse nowhere says that people are born guilty of sin. All it says is:

- Sin entered the world through Adam.
- Death resulted from his sin, as God had promised it would.
- Because all of us sin, we die, too.

So, where's the bit about people being guilty of sin right out of the womb? Nowhere.

Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak falsehood wander in error from birth.

Error means to sin no?

This verse, too, doesn't say "All people are born guilty of sin from birth." How could it, since a newborn child has no moral awareness, nor the capacity to act immorally? Instead, the verse says the wicked are estranged (from God) from the womb. This description acknowledges the spiritual separation between Man and God that occurred in the Fall in Eden that endures throughout all generations; we are all estranged from God. But this does not mean we are all guilty at birth of sin we could not have understood nor have committed.

The liar has "wandered in error from birth." Well, being cut off spiritually from God as a result of the Fall, all of us (not only liars) "wander in error." How can we not when we are separated from the regulation, the control and guidance, of the Holy Spirit? I don't see, though, that this equates to "are guilty of sin from birth." Remember, the Psalms are poetry and as such employ much hyperbolic and figurative language. This certainly seems to be in evidence in Psalm 58:3 wherein the Psalmist offers a hyperbolic description of the wicked and the one who "speaks falsehood." This overly-dramatic framing of things in Psalm 58:3 is emphasized in the very next verse:

Psalm 58:4-5
4 They have venom like the venom of a serpent, like the deaf adder that stops its ear,
5 so that it does not hear the voice of charmers or of the cunning enchanter.

The simile here demonstrates the poetic nature of what the Psalmist is saying, which ought to signal to the reader NOT to take what is written literally. And so, when I read Psalm 58:3, not only do I not read that the newborn is guilty of having committed sin, but I understand that the verse offers a non-literal, hyperbolic characterization, as poetry is wont to do. In light of these things, why are you attempting to force the verse to assert what it plainly doesn't?

Anyhow, how dod you choose salvation?

I've already explained how in an earlier post. Why aren't you reading what I'm writing?

You seem to be interacting with what I've written as the Roman Catholic propagandist donadams does, who simply ignores or deflects responses, cutting and pasting reams of off-point quotations and out-of-context verses promoting his views. He's not interested in actual discussion where he might have to change his thinking, but in info-dumping on folks in the hope, I suppose, that doing so will overwhelm them into agreeing with his ideas. This doesn't happen, of course. No thinking person likes talking with a propagandist, nor do they find propagandist tactics persuasive.

 

[Tenchi]

I am still waiting for Scripture that says you are born sinless and without guilt.

And I am still waiting for you to supply a verse that actually says a person is guilty at birth of having committed a sin. So far, all you've offered are verses you misconstrue because they don't actually say what you're using them to say. Psalm 58:3 is a good example.

I understand that is the position of many Christians, but yt makes no sense from a Biblical or theological position.

I understand that this is the way you've been taught to think, but, so far, you've offered nothing in rebuttal to what I've written that defeats my view. You seem, instead, so convinced of your view that you just can't take in any alternative view, but must protect your position by characterizing all others as "making no sense." This kind of mischaracterization of a differing view suggests to me a measure of insecurity in you about your Reformed doctrines and so, an unwillingness to genuinely understand them.

David completely understood he was born in sin and struggled with it.

Psalms 51:5-6 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. Behold, You delight in truth in the innermost being, And in the hidden part You will make me know wisdom.

Repeating yourself doesn't prove your view. Especially when a good counter-argument has been made against it.

How did you choose to be saved?

I've already answered this in an earlier post.

 

[electedbyHim]

No, it's not that I don't accept them; it's that I don't accept your theological "spin" on them.



As I already pointed out, this verse nowhere says that people are born guilty of sin. All it says is:

- Sin entered the world through Adam.
- Death resulted from his sin, as God had promised it would.
- Because all of us sin, we die, too.

So, where's the bit about people being guilty of sin right out of the womb? Nowhere.



This verse, too, doesn't say "All people are born guilty of sin from birth." How could it, since a newborn child has no moral awareness, nor the capacity to act immorally? Instead, the verse says the wicked are estranged (from God) from the womb. This description acknowledges the spiritual separation between Man and God that occurred in the Fall in Eden that endures throughout all generations; we are all estranged from God. But this does not mean we are all guilty at birth of sin we could not have understood nor have committed.

The liar has "wandered in error from birth." Well, being cut off spiritually from God as a result of the Fall, all of us (not only liars) "wander in error." How can we not when we are separated from the regulation, the control and guidance, of the Holy Spirit? I don't see, though, that this equates to "are guilty of sin from birth." Remember, the Psalms are poetry and as such employ much hyperbolic and figurative language. This certainly seems to be in evidence in Psalm 58:3 wherein the Psalmist offers a hyperbolic description of the wicked and the one who "speaks falsehood." This overly-dramatic framing of things in Psalm 58:3 is emphasized in the very next verse:

Psalm 58:4-5
4 They have venom like the venom of a serpent, like the deaf adder that stops its ear,
5 so that it does not hear the voice of charmers or of the cunning enchanter.

The simile here demonstrates the poetic nature of what the Psalmist is saying, which ought to signal to the reader NOT to take what is written literally. And so, when I read Psalm 58:3, not only do I not read that the newborn is guilty of having committed sin, but I understand that the verse offers a non-literal, hyperbolic characterization, as poetry is wont to do. In light of these things, why are you attempting to force the verse to assert what it plainly doesn't?


I've already explained how in an earlier post. Why aren't you reading what I'm writing?

You seem to be interacting with what I've written as the Roman Catholic propagandist donadams does, who simply ignores or deflects responses, cutting and pasting reams of off-point quotations and out-of-context verses promoting his views. He's not interested in actual discussion where he might have to change his thinking, but in info-dumping on folks in the hope, I suppose, that doing so will overwhelm them into agreeing with his ideas. This doesn't happen, of course. No thinking person likes talking with a propagandist, nor do they find propagandist tactics persuasive.

No, it's not that I don't accept them; it's that I don't accept your theological "spin" on them.

Because you do not accept this doctrine does not make it true.

I've already explained how in an earlier post. Why aren't you reading what I'm writing?

What you are writing does not align with what the Bible teaches and what grounded Theologians and Pastors teach.

So, where's the bit about people being guilty of sin right out of the womb? Nowhere.

You choose not to accept the interpretation of the Scriptures I have provided and put your own spin on it.

You seem to be interacting with what I've written as the Roman Catholic propagandist donadams does, who simply ignores or deflects responses, cutting and pasting reams of off-point quotations and out-of-context verses promoting his views. He's not interested in actual discussion where he might have to change his thinking, but in info-dumping on folks in the hope, I suppose, that doing so will overwhelm them into agreeing with his ideas. This doesn't happen, of course. No thinking person likes talking with a propagandist, nor do they find propagandist tactics persuasive.

Have you answered my questions?

State the verses where humans are born sinless.

Describe how you chose to be saved and had helped God save you. That is a rephrase of my original question.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[electedbyHim]

And I am still waiting for you to supply a verse that actually says a person is guilty at birth of having committed a sin. So far, all you've offered are verses you misconstrue because they don't actually say what you're using them to say. Psalm 58:3 is a good example.



I understand that this is the way you've been taught to think, but, so far, you've offered nothing in rebuttal to what I've written that defeats my view. You seem, instead, so convinced of your view that you just can't take in any alternative view, but must protect your position by characterizing all others as "making no sense." This kind of mischaracterization of a differing view suggests to me a measure of insecurity in you about your Reformed doctrines and so, an unwillingness to genuinely understand them.



Repeating yourself doesn't prove your view. Especially when a good counter-argument has been made against it.



I've already answered this in an earlier post.

I've already answered this in an earlier post.

Apologies but I must have not seen it.

Post # please.

 

[electedbyHim]

Only sinful pride says man chose to be saved.

Why cant the Lord have all the glory for salvation?

Monergism and synergism have been debated within the church for centuries. It is no exaggeration to say that this debate concerns the very heart of the gospel. First, let us define the two terms. Discussions about monergism vs. synergism are, theologically speaking, about who brings about our salvation. Monergism is the view that God alone effects our salvation. This view is usually associated with Calvinistic and Reformed traditions. Synergism is the view that God works together with us in some way to effect salvation.

The term monergism comes from a compound Greek word meaning “to work alone”; synergism is from another compound Greek word meaning “to work together.” As mentioned, monergism is often associated with Calvinism. Calvinists often accuse Arminians of holding to synergism; however, many, if not most, Arminians would deny the accusation and place themselves in the monergism camp.

Monergism says that God does the work of salvation, and the elect are the beneficiaries of that work. Even the faith needed to receive God’s salvation is a gift from God (see Ephesians 2:8–9). Synergism says that God does part of the work of salvation, but mankind must still do something to reap the benefits: muster faith, be baptized, continue in good works, etc. Defined this way, synergism is clearly unbiblical. No human work or merit can be added to God’s grace without destroying grace (Romans 11:6).

Calvinists typically associate the term monergism with Calvinism: if you believe in monergism, you must be a Calvinist. It’s true that Calvinism is monergistic, but there are also many Arminians who consider their system of theology monergistic, in this way: faith must be present to receive God’s grace, but faith itself is not meritorious. Faith receives grace, but it does not cause grace. In fact, classical Arminianism teaches that the faith needed to receive divine grace is a response to God’s prevenient grace. So, God still does the work of salvation, even though an act of human will (enabled by God) is seen as a necessary requirement to receive it.

The essence of the monergistic argument is that God is in the business of actually saving people and not merely making them “savable.” Monergism starts with an enemy of God, seemingly unsavable, and, by the grace of God, brings that spiritually dead person into saving faith and union with Christ. Synergism, in all its forms (including Pelagianism), starts with a person who has at least a spark of spiritual life. This person has the natural ability to take a step toward God apart from grace and thus meet God in the middle. God may do most of the saving work, but He must somehow also depend on the work of the individual being saved.

Monergism claims that God all that is necessary for our salvation and that He is sufficient to save; synergism claims that God is necessary but insufficient. The synergistic system ultimately places the responsibility for salvation on us. Monergism places the responsibility for our salvation wholly on God. It is God who has “predestined . . . called . . . justified . . . glorified” us in Christ (Romans 8:30). It is He who began and will complete the work of salvation in us (Philippians 1:6). It is He who keeps the sheep secure in His hand (John 10:27–30).

In conclusion, the weight of the biblical evidence clearly supports the monergistic view of salvation—Jesus is the author and perfector of our salvation (Hebrews 12:2). There is no room for us to boast, and all the glory goes to God our Savior!

Gotquestions.org

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Notice the man confessed his own complete inability.

John 5:7 The sick man answered Him, “Sir, I have no man to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up, but while I am coming, another steps down before me.”

God wants your availability, not ability. Those who are well don’t need a physician, those who are sick do.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

As I already pointed out, this verse nowhere says that people are born guilty of sin. All it says is:

- Sin entered the world through Adam.
- Death resulted from his sin, as God had promised it would.
- Because all of us sin, we die, too.

So, where's the bit about people being guilty of sin right out of the womb? Nowhere.

If there’s no sin, then Jesus died in vain.

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. (Ps. 51:5)
After this Job opened his mouth and cursed the day of his birth. (Job 3:1)

 

[electedbyHim]

God wants your availability, not ability. Those who are well don’t need a physician, those who are sick do.

How are the unregenerate availbale to God?

Romans 8:5-8 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God, for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh are not able to please God.

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

How are the unregenerate availbale to God?

God’s gospel reaches the whole wide world, being available or unavailable to God is a conscious choice, see the parable of the wedding feast. That sick man may be physically incapacitated, but he was available when Jesus approached him.

 

[Consecrated Life]

Does man have free will to choose salvation?​

If we did not then by God's own professed desire for all humanity in His Word ,which cannot lie, every person ever born would be saved , or God would be a liar.

 

[hawkman]

If God doesn't act first no man by nature seeks God.its because He first loved us .

Indeed , but when did God first start loving us ?

 

[Tenchi]

If there’s no sin, then Jesus died in vain.

Who has said there is no sin? I haven't.

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. (Ps. 51:5)
After this Job opened his mouth and cursed the day of his birth. (Job 3:1)

Already asked and answered.

 

[Tenchi]

Only sinful pride says man chose to be saved.

I understand it helps Calvinists to frame things this way about those who don't hold to their view, but this ugly mischaracterization of those of a differing view from their own is quite false. In my experience, it isn't pride at all but a simple, careful reading of God's word uninfected by a Calvinist lens and an unwillingness to ignore absurdities and paradoxes of reasoning by calling them "mysteries."

Why cant the Lord have all the glory for salvation?

I already explained this. How does my choosing to see my dentist steal from him the praise he deserves for filling my cavity? I can believe all I like that my dentist can fix my tooth, and choose to go to his office and sit in his dental chair for days or weeks, but if my dentist doesn't fix my tooth, it won't get fixed. The only one who can be praised for my cavity being fixed, then, is the one who fixes it: My dentist. All I did by believing in my dentist's skill, and choosing to go to my dentist for a tooth repair, is put myself in a position where he fixed my tooth. How is any of what I do in this situation an expression of pride? It's just not.

In the same way, my trusting in Christ as my Savior and yielding to him as my Lord and choosing to receive his saving work, doesn't save me any more than trusting in the skill of my dentist and choosing to have him fix my tooth fixes my tooth. My tooth only gets fixed when my dentist fixes it and my life is saved only when my Savior saves me. There is no pride in this, only need. In both cases, the one who meets my need is the one who gets all the praise for doing so. This isn't that hard to understand...

Monergism and synergism have been debated within the church for centuries. It is no exaggeration to say that this debate concerns the very heart of the gospel. First, let us define the two terms. Discussions about monergism vs. synergism are, theologically speaking, about who brings about our salvation. Monergism is the view that God alone effects our salvation. This view is usually associated with Calvinistic and Reformed traditions. Synergism is the view that God works together with us in some way to effect salvation.

The term monergism comes from a compound Greek word meaning “to work alone”; synergism is from another compound Greek word meaning “to work together.” As mentioned, monergism is often associated with Calvinism. Calvinists often accuse Arminians of holding to synergism; however, many, if not most, Arminians would deny the accusation and place themselves in the monergism camp.

Monergism says that God does the work of salvation, and the elect are the beneficiaries of that work. Even the faith needed to receive God’s salvation is a gift from God (see Ephesians 2:8–9). Synergism says that God does part of the work of salvation, but mankind must still do something to reap the benefits: muster faith, be baptized, continue in good works, etc. Defined this way, synergism is clearly unbiblical. No human work or merit can be added to God’s grace without destroying grace (Romans 11:6).

Calvinists typically associate the term monergism with Calvinism: if you believe in monergism, you must be a Calvinist. It’s true that Calvinism is monergistic, but there are also many Arminians who consider their system of theology monergistic, in this way: faith must be present to receive God’s grace, but faith itself is not meritorious. Faith receives grace, but it does not cause grace. In fact, classical Arminianism teaches that the faith needed to receive divine grace is a response to God’s prevenient grace. So, God still does the work of salvation, even though an act of human will (enabled by God) is seen as a necessary requirement to receive it.

The essence of the monergistic argument is that God is in the business of actually saving people and not merely making them “savable.” Monergism starts with an enemy of God, seemingly unsavable, and, by the grace of God, brings that spiritually dead person into saving faith and union with Christ. Synergism, in all its forms (including Pelagianism), starts with a person who has at least a spark of spiritual life. This person has the natural ability to take a step toward God apart from grace and thus meet God in the middle. God may do most of the saving work, but He must somehow also depend on the work of the individual being saved.

Monergism claims that God all that is necessary for our salvation and that He is sufficient to save; synergism claims that God is necessary but insufficient. The synergistic system ultimately places the responsibility for salvation on us. Monergism places the responsibility for our salvation wholly on God. It is God who has “predestined . . . called . . . justified . . . glorified” us in Christ (Romans 8:30). It is He who began and will complete the work of salvation in us (Philippians 1:6). It is He who keeps the sheep secure in His hand (John 10:27–30).

In conclusion, the weight of the biblical evidence clearly supports the monergistic view of salvation—Jesus is the author and perfector of our salvation (Hebrews 12:2). There is no room for us to boast, and all the glory goes to God our Savior!

Gotquestions.org

If we're just going to cut-and-paste the work of others on this issue, then:

www.soteriology101.com

www.reasonablefaith.org

 

[hawkman]

Remember this , or Thread bans can happen . A post was edited .

1.2: Those who identify themselves as Christians will be held accountable to conduct themselves as such. If they are truly governed by the Holy Spirit, they will not continually engage in goading, mocking, insulting, trolling, berating or inciting other members to anger and resentment. They will post in a Spirit of kindness and respect, even if there are doctrinal disagreements, and be quick to reconcile if differences of opinion should get heated. Disciplinary actions will be taken against those whom staff regards to be naming the name of Christ and yet are holding the truth in unrighteousness.

 

[electedbyHim]

Tenchi said .
"I understand it helps Calvinists to frame things this way about those who don't hold to their view, but this ugly mischaracterization of those of a differing view from their own is quite false. In my experience, it isn't pride at all but a simple, careful reading of God's word uninfected by a Calvinist lens and an unwillingness to ignore absurdities and paradoxes of reasoning by calling them "mysteries."



I already explained this. How does my choosing to see my dentist steal from him the praise he deserves for filling my cavity? I can believe all I like that my dentist can fix my tooth, and choose to go to his office and sit in his dental chair for days or weeks, but if my dentist doesn't fix my tooth, it won't get fixed. The only one who can be praised for my cavity being fixed, then, is the one who fixes it: My dentist. All I did by believing in my dentist's skill, and choosing to go to my dentist for a tooth repair, is put myself in a position where he fixed my tooth. How is any of what I do in this situation an expression of pride? It's just not.

In the same way, my trusting in Christ as my Savior and yielding to him as my Lord and choosing to receive his saving work, doesn't save me any more than trusting in the skill of my dentist and choosing to have him fix my tooth fixes my tooth. My tooth only gets fixed when my dentist fixes it and my life is saved only when my Savior saves me. There is no pride in this, only need. In both cases, the one who meets my need is the one who gets all the praise for doing so. This isn't that hard to understand...



If we're just going to cut-and-paste the work of others on this issue, then:

www.soteriology101.com

www.reasonablefaith.org

END of Tenchi Quote .

@Tenchi In the same way, my trusting in Christ as my Savior

How did you get that trust (belief)?

@Tenchi If we're just going to cut-and-paste the work of others on this issue, then

Why is that an issue?

I am not an educated man and can not articulate my thoughts properly like others on this forum. Why is that an issue for you?

What is your intention of the comment?

 

[hawkman]

Locking thread for further review .

 

[Fastfredy0]

Only sinful pride says man chose to be saved.

I would say ignorance and the default position of men is to think their desires are not determined by God.
Men do not choose their desires. Even if men could choose their desires, they would need pre-determined desires to be used to pick their desires. This is impossible circular logic.

 

[electedbyHim]

I would say ignorance and the default position of men is to think their desires are not determined by God.
Men do not choose their desires. Even if men could choose their desires, they would need pre-determined desires to be used to pick their desires. This is impossible circular logic.

Excellent.