Free will or no free will?

[Bubba]

Francisdesales,
Eternity is a long time to endure torment, unlike the Heavenly Father we do not have the ability to change the heart of our children, but God does. In this realm, He actually does change the heart (Ezek. 36:22-28, Eph. 2:1-9), why would He not in the next. The Prodigal son parable, as all parables can only be taken so far. As I have already mentioned, God brings events into individual’s lives to bring them back to Him, no less for the prodigal. You and I can not orchestrate this for our children; we pray that God will direct their circumstances for good.
We are directed to love our enemies, why would God do any less considering we were all enemies to God before being delivered from Satan’s dominion. The problem (I think), is that for those who believe in freewill, is that they have the notion that there is something worth saving in them, because they had the ability to decide for Jesus or as you believe for the pagan or heathen, the ability to be a person of “good willâ€Â. When in fact, we would still be lost in our sins, if not for revelation sent from above. Paul told Agrippa that he was sent as in instrument, “to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me†(Acts 26:18). Of all people Paul knew that he himself was spiritually blind as well as literally blind when Ananias came and told him he was chosen by God as an instrument to the Gentiles (Acts 9). What part did his supposed freewill play in this? Nothing. Only God can change the heart of our children, Paul and everybody else, since each of us have sinned against the “infinite God†and continue to even after our salvation experience.
Romans 5:18 states, “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.†“All†is conclusive for the human race who is under condemnation, why is “all†not all conclusive in regards to life for the human race?
Grace, Bubba

 

[Catholic Crusader]

is “all†not all conclusive in regards to life for the human race?

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

Are you saying that death did NOT spread to all men? Are some of us immune fromm original sin?

 

[Bubba]

is “all†not all conclusive in regards to life for the human race?

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

Are you saying that death did NOT spread to all men? Are some of us immune fromm original sin?

CC,
No, I am asking how can "all" (Romans 5:18) include everyone under the curse of Adam (original sin) and in the same sentence "all" does not include everyone being given life in the 2nd Adam (Jesus).
Bubba

 

[Catholic Crusader]

is “all†not all conclusive in regards to life for the human race?

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

Are you saying that death did NOT spread to all men? Are some of us immune fromm original sin?

CC,
No, I am asking how can "all" (Romans 5:18) include everyone under the curse of Adam (original sin) and in the same sentence "all" does not include everyone being given life in the 2nd Adam (Jesus).
Bubba

Because it is up to us to accept the gift Christ has given us. Not everyone will do that. Thats why you can;t just run with one scripture without balancing it out with the rest

 

[Bubba]

Because it is up to us to accept the gift Christ has given us. Not everyone will do that. Thats why you can;t just run with one scripture without balancing it out with the rest

CC,
That is why I ran that long list of Scriptures to answer TRUE or False to. This passage is not an isolated occurence.
Bubba

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Because it is up to us to accept the gift Christ has given us. Not everyone will do that. Thats why you can;t just run with one scripture without balancing it out with the rest

CC,
That is why I ran that long list of Scriptures to answer TRUE or False to. This passage is not an isolated occurence.
Bubba

I meant balancing it out with ALL scriptures, not just the handfull that support your view

 

[Bubba]

When we say someone has freewill are we saying that they have ability to make choices unhampered by their existing nature, which is sinful? If man had no existing influence prior to a decision to accept or reject Jesus, I would say that they had freewill. This according to Scripture is not the case. Because man does have a sinful nature, he is only as free as the desires of his heart, thus he will not choose that which is spiritual, because it is foolishness to him (1 Cor. 2:14). Freewill then is choosing according to what the person desires, and if their nature is sinful, how free is their will? As M. Slick writes, â€ÂThe unsaved can act freely, but only within the limits of their sinful nature which cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14), does not seek for God (Rom. 3:11), hates God, and is in slavery to sin (Rom. 6:17,20), etc. That is why Jesus said, "No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him..." (John 6:44), and, "No one can come to Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father" (John 6:65). These are not the statements one would hope to find if the sinner were so free to choose to accept or reject God.â€Â
Bubba

 

[Drew]

Hello Bubba (and others):

From a conceptual perspective, it does not necessarily follow that if a man is inherently sinful, he cannot be cognitively aware of that state and make certain other kinds of "free-will" decisions. I think that your position here makes a subtle assumption - that if our moral faculty is inherently tainted, our cognitive faculties are as well. Now to be fair, you can level a similar critique at me - that I implicitly assume this kind of disjunction between the "moral" and the "cognitive". However, while a man who has a nature that compels him to sin must indeed sin, we are not justified in concluding that he cannot take a free will action in another "domain" - what I will call the "cognitive" one.

Let's say that I experience an irresistable compulsion to drink alchohol. I assume that there are people with this affliction. I simply cannot resist the urge to drink. And so I drink. As a person with a cognitive faculty, it certainly seems that I can indeed reason about the state of affairs that I am in - I can reflect on my state and draw the correct conclusion, namely that my nature compels me to sin in this way.

However, it seems to me that there is every reason to believe that my cognitive faculty can allow me to make free will decisions to, say, take some kind of medicine that cures this compulsion.

The point being that there is a de-coupling between the content of my compulsion and my ability to reason about that compulsion and possibly (freely) take a corrective action. Note that I am not saying that I can "will to not drink", I am saying that I can will take some action outside of the context of this compulsion that will "cure" the irresisitable drive to drink. I am not resisting the compulsion - I am exercizing my intellectual faculties and choosing to perform an action whereby an external agent - the medecine - does battle with the compulsion and overcomes it. It is the medecine that does the job of overcoming something I cannot. But I see no reason why being a "totally depraved alchoholic" makes it impossible for me to reason about my state and take some other action, outside of my compulsion to drink, that ultimately results in my deliverance.

And of course, I am sure you see how this analogy transposes into subject at hand.

Perhaps you will argue that being sinful damages our faculty to even reflect on our state and make choices about it. I suggest that the evidence of the real world shows otherwise. We are not "totally depraved" in the sense of having no control over our lives. There are many non-Christians who clearly achieve some degree of success in battling addictions and other problems. They must have "decided" at some point to deal with their problem. If they were incapable of doing anything but sinning, they would have almost certainly spiralled into destruction.

People sometimes argue that every single action of an unredeemed person is directly or indirectly sinful. The readers are free to judge how such a statement maps to the reality of their life experience. This "every action of the unredeemed person is ultimately sinful despite appearances to the contrary" idea strikes me as having the implausibility of many conspiracy theories - it cannot be disproven, but it really is a stretch.

The second issue relates to 1 cor 2:14 which reads as follows in the NASB:

14But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised

Clearly, I can see how this text can be seen as supporting your position. But things are not that simple. I think you are making an implicit assumption that the ability to recognize and freely act on one's fallen state is itself in the category of being a "thing of the Spirit of God".

Clearly, fallen men function in the world - they make reasonably competent decisions about the affairs of their lives, at least to some extent. They care for their children, etc. Is that all sin?

Consider the following fanciful hypothetical: I know nothing about general relativity. One could imagine someone making the following statement about me:

"Drew in his present state does not accept the propositions of general relativity - they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are appraised by an intellectual capaiblity that Drew does not possess"

Does this mean that I cannot be aware of my limitation and freely choose to undergo high tech surgery where "brain is added" so that, after I recover, I am indeed capable of understanding general relativity?

 

[Bubba]

Drew wrote:

“I think you are making an implicit assumption that the ability to recognize and freely act on one's fallen state is itself in the category of being a "thing of the Spirit of God".â€Â

Yes, Drew I am saying (or the Bible) that man will not seek the things of God that lead to salvation because he is blinded to the truth. In essence that is what Eph. 2:1-5 is referring to, in that man must be made alive to the truth of Jesus Christ. The whole human race is in darkness (and prefers this darkness) in regards to the truth of the gospel of Christ. Each individual needs to be delivered from the domain of Satan (Acts 26:18) to be able to respond to the “Good Newsâ€Â.
Now does that mean that mankind does not make choices? Certainly not. Man is capable of making moral decisions, loving their children, living a halfway decent life, able to say no to alcohol, drugs, and etc. I would only add that every choice man makes is influence by someone or something. In respect to good moral decisions, I believe God through a general grace makes the world a more palpable place. If God took away this general grace, I believe man would be seen in his true light. I know that in my own life, I am aghast how selfish and prideful an individual I am even as a child of God. Everything I do is sullied to some degree of a sinful motivation.
Grace, Bubba

 

[mondar]

....But I see no reason why being a "totally depraved alchoholic" makes it impossible for me to reason about my state and take some other action, outside of my compulsion to drink, that ultimately results in my deliverance....

We are not "totally depraved" in the sense of having no control over our lives. There are many non-Christians who clearly achieve some degree of success in battling addictions and other problems. They must have "decided" at some point to deal with their problem. If they were incapable of doing anything but sinning, they would have almost certainly spiralled into destruction.

This "every action of the unredeemed person is ultimately sinful despite appearances to the contrary" idea strikes me as having the implausibility of many conspiracy theories - it cannot be disproven, but it really is a stretch.

Drew, The terms "free will" and "total depravity" have specific theological meanings. Neither term applies to the extent of sin. Certainly man can self reform themselves. As bubba said, "Man is capable of making moral decisions, loving their children, living a halfway decent life, able to say no to alcohol, drugs, and etc."

If the definition of terms is not agreed upon, you will talk right past each other.

The second issue relates to 1 cor 2:14 which reads as follows in the NASB:

14But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised

Clearly, I can see how this text can be seen as supporting your position. But things are not that simple. I think you are making an implicit assumption that the ability to recognize and freely act on one's fallen state is itself in the category of being a "thing of the Spirit of God".

Clearly, fallen men function in the world - they make reasonably competent decisions about the affairs of their lives, at least to some extent. They care for their children, etc. Is that all sin?

Consider the following fanciful hypothetical: I know nothing about general relativity. One could imagine someone making the following statement about me:

"Drew in his present state does not accept the propositions of general relativity - they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are appraised by an intellectual capaiblity that Drew does not possess"

Does this mean that I cannot be aware of my limitation and freely choose to undergo high tech surgery where "brain is added" so that, after I recover, I am indeed capable of understanding general relativity?

Your analogy above does not grasp the concepts correctly. Can I make a change?

General Relativity is a revelation given to the prophet Einstein. Einstein has taught Professors X all the math behind general relativity. Professor X can no flawlessly do the math, and he understands all the concepts of relativity. Nevertheless, he refuses to believe it and thinks it foolishness.

Certainly professor X can reform his life in many ways. He can even believe many scientific truths. He can also believe some things related to relativity, but he cannot believe Einstein's theory that time is relative. It seems that it is simply against his nature to believe such foolishness.

* I think this more accurately represents the definitions of "total depravity" and "free will."

 

[Imagican]

A simple word that offers MUCH understanding of this issue: FOLLOW.

An understanding of the word FOLLOW is able to offer MUCH in an understanding of "free will''.

CAN one follow by FORCE? Can one STRIVE by force? Can one HAVE FAITH by force?

And then we SEE that there WILL be HEARERS, (those that readily HEAR the truth), but that ALL that HEAR will NOT be FOLLOWERS.

What is the distinguishing DIFFERENCE in one that hears but DOES NOT FOLLOW and one that hears and DOES follow?

Now, if 'free will', the freedom to CHOOSE which path one follows, is NOT at work in the spirit of man, then HOW could 'one hear' and follow, but one HEAR and NOT follow? What is the DIFFERENCE between the TWO?

For there to BE 'no' free will or ABILITY to 'choose', then one MUST assume and accept that God simply 'picks and chooses' who He WILL FORCE to 'follow Him' and who He chooses to KEEP FROM following Him.

Now, a more compelling understanding of the issue: LOVE. Could God TRULY BE love and NOT allow those that He LOVES to CHOOSE? Could there BE any 'true love' WITHOUT 'choice'? Could one TRULY love another and then DENY them FREEDOM of Choice?

I find it difficult to understand HOW one could come to a conclusion of God PICKING who He will MAKE 'see' and 'do'. We are TOLD to persevere. Is this a possible situation of FORCE? Or does perservere indicate in it's MEANING itself that one must DO SO by CHOICE? For IF perserverance could be ANYTHING other than CHOICE, how could it be ASKED of us. IF it were ABLE to be FORCED, then there would be NO PURPOSE in ASKING.

And can one truly be FORCED to 'follow'? I know that many will choose to follow over the consequences of NOT following. But IF one is UNCONCERNED with consequence, at THAT point that they CHOOSE to 'go against consequence', can they TRULY be FORCED to follow? I contend that if one is WILLING to suffer the consequences, then they may INDEED simply SIT DOWN and UTTERLY REFUSE to FOLLOW. At that point, in order to FORCE them to proceed in a 'forced direction' then those in control would LITERALLY have to PICK the individual UP and CARRY THEM.
I have YET to witness testimony or witness that this is SO.

God WANTS our love offered FREELY. He does NOT want a family of 'drones' that love Him through FORCE or without CHOICE. If that were the case, He would have simply CREATED Adam and EVE to have NO choice. But we can see through the 'choice' that they BOTH made that they WERE able to exhibit FREEDOM of choice. Even though God loved them COMPLETELY, He did NOT STOP them from MAKING their OWN choice.

We can SEE in the story of Jonah that Jonah WAS able to thwart the WILL of God. UNLIKE Jonah, how MANY do you reacon have been punished as Jonah WAS 'without' ever TURNING BACK? For Jonah eventually FOLLOWED the will of God. But HOW MANY do you reacon have had to face the SAME kind of punishment that DID NOT 'turn back'? And could ANYONE believe that this was NOT through FREEDOM of Choice? That 'free will' was THWARTED in the case of Jonah. That he DIDN'T still possess 'free will' even after all his trials? Did he NOT eventually CHOOSE to FOLLOW?

While our OWN faith OFTEN makes it IMPOSSIBLE to EVER return to a 'previous understanding', that does NOT eliminate our CHOICE to perservere. While we KNOW that we should LOVE our neighbors as ourselves, that does NOT MEAN we HAVE to. While we KNOW that we SHOULD eat right, KEEP ourselves from idols, and DENY the temptations that this world throws our way, that does NOT mean that we are UNABLE to 'go against' that which we KNOW.

I have YET to witness a 'perfectly' SINLESS 'man'. WHY? If God is able to FORCE one to FOLLOW Him, then WHY is there NO perfect 'man'? Why are ALL sinners? For IF there is NO 'free will', then those that are LED away from sin, those that DON'T have 'free will', WHY are there NONE of these that are able to UTTERLY overcome? There is not ONE that is 'perfect', no, not ONE.

No folks, don't believe for a SECOND that YOU don't have a "choice'' or 'free will' to follow or NOT. Even AFTER one comes to 'the truth', they are STILL able to CHOOSE to 'follow' or NOT. That IS the distinguishing factor between those that are TRULY saved and those that are simply HEARERS. The difference between those that OVERCOME and those that DON'T. The REASON that we are COMPELED to ASK for 'forgiveness'. The REASON for repentance. For IF there were NO 'free will', then we would have NO reason to 'fight the good fight'. And if there were NO 'free will' we would NOT be compeled to BELIEVE. For IF there WERE no 'free will', then there could BE NO denial.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Bubba]

When a healthy husband and wife learn that they are going to have a child, they begin loving their child while in the womb. When the birth comes, they are able to tangibly love their child. This child now after birth is able to visibly, audibly, and physically enjoy the love of his parents. I believe with God, though He has loved us from the very beginning, even before our conception, there is nonetheless a veil on our hearts in the spiritual realm. We need to be born from above to enjoy our heavenly Parent. God chooses to remove the veil by changing our hearts to receive the truth. God does not need to FORCE Himself; He simply reveals his love through Christ to a heart that now desires Him. Unlike the traditional view, I believe God will eventually change all hearts and reveal Himself in Jesus to all those presently spiritually blind, if not in this life, the next.
Grace, Bubba

 

[MarkT]

A man had an oil tank that was leaking oil. So he fashioned vessels for his purpose, which was to collect the oil. He also fashioned vessels for drinking wine; vessels of gold and silver. So the man fashioned each vessel for his purpose. Some he fashioned for noble use, and some he fashioned for ignoble use. The vessels that were made to collect oil were later thrown away. The vessels said, 'Why did you make us so?' 'Are we not the work of your hand also?' 'Did we not serve your purpose?' And the man said, 'I made each vessel for my purpose.' The vessels for oil were made for oil. 'I fashioned them for my use.' They served my purpose. However they are contaminated by the oil and they are no longer good for anything since all the oil has been collected.' So it will be with all evil and all evil doers. The vessels of wrath will be thrown into the fire.

That's just one thing to keep in mind.

As for freewill. I went to the bank the other day. The manager told me he had freewill. He explained to me that he could rob me if he wanted to. I looked at him like he was crazy. No way would I keep my money in his bank. If I wouldn't trust him with my money, how can God trust you with the more important things?

That's why the freewillers are so poor in their spiritual understanding.

 

[mutzrein]

MEC – I have another simple word and it relates specifically to those who follow. The word is ‘SHEEP’. Jesus tells us that His sheep hear his voice and they FOLLOW Him. Now tell me, how do they become His sheep? Do they choose?

And what is the difference between those who hear and follow and those who hear and don’t?

Many times scripture talks about those who are ‘ . . . ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’

Do you not accept that it that is God that gives understanding?

 

[Imagican]

MEC – I have another simple word and it relates specifically to those who follow. The word is ‘SHEEP’. Jesus tells us that His sheep hear his voice and they FOLLOW Him. Now tell me, how do they become His sheep? Do they choose?

And HEREIN lies the answer: The 'sheep' ARE those that SUBMIT themselves to the WILL of the Shepard.

And what is the difference between those who hear and follow and those who hear and don’t?

The ULTIMATE 'simple answer' is: PRIDE. For many will HEAR but continue to choose to follow SELF instead of truth. For their OWN sakes will they hear but NOT fully understand.

Many times scripture talks about those who are ‘ . . . ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’

And IF these COULD simply 'put aside SELF' then they would INDEED be ABLE 'turn and BE forgiven'. For the words that they HEAR are ONLY able to BE discerned so far as SELF is concerned. An INABILITY for these to SEE that they MUST submit themselves FIRST for the words to HAVE true meaning.

Do you not accept that it that is God that gives understanding?

Absolutely. Without a DOUBT. But that same understanding CAN be either ACCEPTED or DENIED. As in ANY gift, Mutz, it is ONLY a 'gift' AFTER it is RECEIVED. And ANY gift CAN be 'denied'. For WHATEVER 'reason', that which is OFFERED can indeed be ignored or REFUSED. Whether CONCIOUSLY rejected or SUBCONCIOUSLY, it takes SUBMISSION in order to ACCEPT.

If it were NOT for the sake of 'choice', we would NEVER have been GIVEN the Word to begin with. And the LAWS that were given to the JEWS; these were ONLY able to be adhered to by CHOICE. For we SEE that those that would CHOOSE to disobey them WOULD be PUNISHED. Punished for an INABILITY to choose? Now that would be utter futility to punish those that HAD NO CHOICE.

Blessings, my brother

MEC

 

[Bubba]

MEC – I have another simple word and it relates specifically to those who follow. The word is ‘SHEEP’. Jesus tells us that His sheep hear his voice and they FOLLOW Him. Now tell me, how do they become His sheep? Do they choose?

And HEREIN lies the answer: The 'sheep' ARE those that SUBMIT themselves to the WILL of the Shepard.

And what is the difference between those who hear and follow and those who hear and don’t?

The ULTIMATE 'simple answer' is: PRIDE. For many will HEAR but continue to choose to follow SELF instead of truth. For their OWN sakes will they hear but NOT fully understand.

Many times scripture talks about those who are ‘ . . . ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’

And IF these COULD simply 'put aside SELF' then they would INDEED be ABLE 'turn and BE forgiven'. For the words that they HEAR are ONLY able to BE discerned so far as SELF is concerned. An INABILITY for these to SEE that they MUST submit themselves FIRST for the words to HAVE true meaning.

Do you not accept that it that is God that gives understanding?

Absolutely. Without a DOUBT. But that same understanding CAN be either ACCEPTED or DENIED. As in ANY gift, Mutz, it is ONLY a 'gift' AFTER it is RECEIVED. And ANY gift CAN be 'denied'. For WHATEVER 'reason', that which is OFFERED can indeed be ignored or REFUSED. Whether CONCIOUSLY rejected or SUBCONCIOUSLY, it takes SUBMISSION in order to ACCEPT.

If it were NOT for the sake of 'choice', we would NEVER have been GIVEN the Word to begin with. And the LAWS that were given to the JEWS; these were ONLY able to be adhered to by CHOICE. For we SEE that those that would CHOOSE to disobey them WOULD be PUNISHED. Punished for an INABILITY to choose? Now that would be utter futility to punish those that HAD NO CHOICE.

Blessings, my brother

MEC

Mec,
If the offending heart has been changed by the Holy Spirit (Eph.2:10, Ezek. 36:22-18), what now does this new heart now desire and would this person say no to Jesus? Especially if their desire now is love for Jesus and His ways.
In regards to being punished for what we did or did not do, I believe this is remedial in the next life and in this life a direct consequence of our sinful nature that we would choose over the true God and His ways. This is not to say that a Jew (back then) or anyone else can not make good decisions (especially sense there are consequences for bad decisions), but what ever good the pagan, heathen or Christian does accomplish comes from God (1Cor.4:7, James 1:17) our part always has the taint of sin, this is why we are always in the need for a Savior.
Grace, Bubba

 

[mondar]

MEC,
I dont see anyone saying we have no choice. Who says we have no choice?

Mondar

 

[Imagican]

Mondar,

What IS 'free will' other than the ABILITY to CHOOSE?

What we WILL is that which we desire. Our 'desire's' fulfillment COMES from CHOICE.

What we are SUPPOSED to do is submit to God's WILL, (desire), yet that IS a 'choice' that EACH must make and continue IN. For WHEN we FAIL to submit to God's will, it IS then that we SIN.

So, regardless of any 'philosophical' understanding that one CHOOSES to adhere to, the TRUTH is much MORE competent than man's feeble attempts at an attempt to label it within the parameters of HIS understanding. And MUCH more SIMPLE.

Can one CHOOSE Salvation? YES. For it is THROUGH 'choice' that one is ABLE to LISTEN to BEGIN with. And then through CHOICE that one is ABLE to ACCEPT the FAITH that is GIVEN of God through His Son. For we must FIRST 'believe'.

Example of HOW we FIRST come to 'faith': There ARE those that CHOOSE to follow LIES. Note, the KEYWORD is CHOOSE. MANY people CHOOSE to 'believe' in Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, Ghosts, Aliens, etc............ For them to FIRST come to a 'faith' there must FIRST come a CHOICE to BELIEVE.

In the EXACT same respect, there is the EXACT opposite: There WILL be and ARE those that CHOOSE to follow THE TRUTH. And for these their FAITH is determined FIRST by their BELIEF. For it IS those that BELIEVE and FOLLOW that are offered the GIFT of eternal life.

Christ DID die so that ALL might be 'saved'. But that His PURPOSE was to DIE for ALL sin, that does NOT mean that there will NOT be those that REFUSE to accept the sacrifice offered. NOW, what IS 'acceptance' other than a BELIEF that leads to FAITH. Can we DO this OWN our OWN? Of course not, for it IS the Spirit that is able to LEND us the power to KNOW. But one MUST remain in the Spirit EVERY second to eliminate the POSSIBILITY of DOUBT. And with DOUBT CAN come denial. And with denial can come a LOSS of faith.

Now, ALL these mentioned concern the CHOICES that we make. We SEE the priest that defiles children, we SEE the pastor committing adultery or WORSE. We SEE the 'churches' allowing homosexual ministers. Now, HOW do you REACON that these FALL? It is THROUGH CHOICE. For God will NEVER offer MORE than we can ENDURE or OVERCOME. But SOME LOOSE their faith and FALL to temptation for a LACK of BELIEF. Now, HOW could ANYONE believe that there is NO 'free will'. That WE are unable to ATTEMPT to institute OUR will over that of God? The examples offered are PURE proof that it IS through 'free will' that WE, like Satan, ARE able to FALL.

Now, one COULD certainly pick and choose their way through scripture to come up with INDIVIDUAL statements that may indeed offer refute of what is offered here. But that is ONLY possible by IGNORING the REST. When we take it as a WHOLE we can CLEARLY see that EVEN though we are unable to SAVE OURSELVES, we are certainly able to CHOOSE that which we BELIEVE through FAITH. That this can be increased through the Power of God and the Holy Spirit is withou doubt. But we must FIRST choose to follow BEFORE we can BE LED. and it works BOTH ways. For one is JUST as capable of FOLLOWING Satan as they are God. MORE so most likely since we KNOW that the world is LOST. That MOST of the inhabitants of this planet will CHOOSE SELF over God. The EXACT same thing that Satan DID that caused HIS fall.

i don't know what else to say. God is NOT the 'Puppet Master'. God is a LOVING AND GIVING FATHER. But He does NOT want PUPPETS to simply follow what He TELLS us. He wants understanding and LOVING Children to follow His EXAMPLE as offered in Jesus Christ. But ACCEPT what He has to OFFER, one MUST make the CHOICE to ACCEPT it. For He WILL not force ANYONE to CHOOSE Him.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[mondar]

MEC,
Alright, can you again tell me who denied that man has a choice? I missed the name in your last post.

Mondar

 

[mutzrein]

Hi MEC

Are we talking about the same thing? I contend LIFE is the gift. When did it ever become possible for the gift of life to be rejected? Can a fetus of its own volition decide not to be born? And scripture tells as that this gift of life (birth of the spirit) is WITHOUT human decision.

BTW - it looks as though part of your text ended up being attributed to me.

Blessings to you too Bro