Total Depravity

[chessman]

Obviously I'm no expert on Calvin's views after merely reading Book 1 once. But when I read Book 1 (including your quoted portion), your summation seems close but not exact to his views. Plus, even Calvin admited it was a complex and difficult topic.

Not sure that I can sort this out, let's see. First God creates all men with the ability to know that He not only exists but His Deity.

I agree this is Biblical and Calvin's view. So already, people that claim Calvin taught otherwise are misrepresenting him. But to continue:

God withholds His urging and leading to seek Him until man recognizes his own depravity.

I think you skipped a step or two prior to His withholding His urging on Calvin's view. I found Calvin to be saying that God's creation (natural revelation) is very evident to men. That is, we didn't create or sustain oursevles, obviuosly. So who does? God does!

Also, God (to Calvin) witholds nothing of His love and urging until and only after man begins to pridefully and arrogantly see himself as his own 'god' (demigod) of a sort. Basically, it's an affront to God for man to think too highly of himself. [think of how much Jesus scolded the Pharisees for their pride yet said little children had the right attitude toward God]

But yes, man often reaches a point were God begins to withhold His urging should he become his own idol. If that all makes sense???

Plus, none of this, or anything at all, catches God by surprise on Calvins view.

 

[childeye]

The semantics of words are the devils playground. He is ever splitting hairs over the meanings of words. His conversation is a constant equivocation that ends in a contradiction. He therefore sows division through misunderstanding and ignorance. He plays the ends against the middle which is why to the pure of heart, all is pure but to the impure of heart, nothing is pure.
Matthew 5:37
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay,nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

With this in mind, mankind is either depraved in separation from God in some degree befitting the size of the chasm of his separation, or he is not.

 

[Deborah13]

The semantics of words are the devils playground. He is ever splitting hairs over the meanings of words. His conversation is a constant equivocation that ends in a contradiction. He therefore sows division through misunderstanding and ignorance. He plays the ends against the middle which is why to the pure of heart, all is pure but to the impure of heart, nothing is pure.
Matthew 5:37
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay,nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

We are trying to get to the truth about a man named Calvin's doctrines. Are you suggesting that this is playing in the devils playground?
If Martin Luther had not questioned the doctrine of the Church of Rome there wouldn't have been a Reformation at that time.

 

[Deborah13]

Obviously I'm no expert on Calvin's views after merely reading Book 1 once. But when I read Book 1 (including your quoted portion), your summation seems close but not exact to his views. Plus, even Calvin admited it was a complex and difficult topic.

I agree this is Biblical and Calvin's view. So already, people that claim Calvin taught otherwise are misrepresenting him. But to continue:
I think you skipped a step or two prior to His withholding His urging on Calvin's view. I found Calvin to be saying that God's creation (natural revelation) is very evident to men. That is, we didn't create or sustain oursevles, obviuosly. So who does? God does!

Also, God (to Calvin) witholds nothing of His love and urging until and only after man begins to pridefully and arrogantly see himself as his own 'god' (demigod) of a sort. Basically, it's an affront to God for man to think too highly of himself. [think of how much Jesus scolded the Pharisees for their pride yet said little children had the right attitude toward God]

But yes, man often reaches a point were God begins to withhold His urging should he become his own idol. If that all makes sense???

Plus, none of this, or anything at all, catches God by surprise on Calvins view.

Ok. First quote, Calvin's conclusion to that section of text is ....
"Every person, therefore, on coming to the knowledge of himself, is not only urged to seek God, but is also led as by the hand to find him."
What I understand from this conclusion of his first point, is that man must come to a knowledge of his own inaccurate self-righteousness, before God urges him to seek and before God will lead the man to seek Him.

What do you understand from his conclusion?

 

[childeye]

We are trying to get to the truth about a man named Calvin's doctrines. Are you suggesting that this is playing in the devils playground?
If Martin Luther had not questioned the doctrine of the Church of Rome there wouldn't have been a Reformation at that time.

I am trying to address the issue of misunderstandings caused by semantics. Without clarity and mutual agreement as to what sentiments are to be construed from certain terms used by Calvin, there will be no agreement nor understanding as to what his doctrines are.

The term "depraved" derives it's proper connotation from what thing, the author using the term, is applying the term. We therefore must ascertain what he is saying we are deprived of, so as to know what depravity he is referring to. If we go by the spiritual terms Light and darkness then he is referring to Light and God is Light. To be in darkness would be a state of depravity. Therefore total depravity most likely means that men are nothing but jars of clay and that God's Light is the only goodness, or living presence in mankind. Hence to know one's self is equivalent to coming to know the Light of God from which we have sentience. To deny God would therefore constitute a denial of self in a detrimental or unprofitable aspect speaking from the objective view.

I, in no way am suggesting it is wrong to question doctrine.

 

[chessman]

Ok. First quote, Calvin's conclusion to that section of text is ....
"Every person, therefore, on coming to the knowledge of himself, is not only urged to seek God, but is also led as by the hand to find him."
What I understand from this conclusion of his first point, is that man must come to a knowledge of his own inaccurate self-righteousness, before God urges him to seek and before God will lead the man to seek Him.

What do you understand from his conclusion?

When he says "Every person, therefore, on coming to the knowledge of himself,
[I think he means every single person (even babies). So when he says "on coming to the knowledge of himself", he means an adolescent. That is, basically when a child grows up they come into self-knowledgde. If I recall correctly he either just got through with an example of a baby in the womb, or a babe on it's morther's breast or he does so within the much more detailed section on this topic later (versus his introduction).

So when he goes on to say they are urged to seek God and are led by God... he still means every person but he's talking about older children as they move into adulthood. At least that's how I understood him.

 

[eddif]

John 12:32
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Mark 7:13
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Regretfully we today have traditions of what someon is supposed to have said.

eddif

 

[Deborah13]

I am trying to address the issue of misunderstandings caused by semantics. Without clarity and mutual agreement as to what sentiments are to be construed from certain terms used by Calvin, there will be no agreement nor understanding as to what his doctrines are.

The term "depraved" derives it's proper connotation from what thing, the author using the term, is applying the term. We therefore must ascertain what he is saying we are deprived of, so as to know what depravity he is referring to. If we go by the spiritual terms Light and darkness then he is referring to Light and God is Light. To be in darkness would be a state of depravity. Therefore total depravity most likely means that men are nothing but jars of clay and that God's Light is the only goodness, or living presence in mankind. Hence to know one's self is equivalent to coming to know the Light of God from which we have sentience. To deny God would therefore constitute a denial of self in a detrimental or unprofitable aspect speaking from the objective view.

I, in no way am suggesting it is wrong to question doctrine.

Thank you for clarifying. I apologize for jumping to conclusions. :blush

 

[childeye]

Thank you for clarifying. I apologize for jumping to conclusions. :blush

No, I apologize for not being more clear, and I thank you for your attention to my discrepancy. You were right to point out the conclusions that could be drawn from what I had posted.

 

[childeye]

IMO there is no such thing as total depravity, God gave man a choice and he made the wrong one.

Respectfully, if Total depravity means that mankind is void of Light apart from God, then you would be disagreeing with John 1:4.

God in His own time decided to make man for fellowship, a creature able and willing to by choice come to Fellowship with GOD.

Everyone in Gods eternal Kingdom will be there because they chose to be, It is all about fellowship with God, CHOOSING to FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD!

I've read your posts and I think they are well written and present a free will theology succinctly. However here is where we differ. I do not see the case for free will existing even as it is asserted as a fact without any proof that it exists. The problem with free will is that it poses as an answer to many questions without ever actually answering the questions. Consequently, it is an incomplete theology.

For example, suppose my child asked me the excellent question, "why do people murder and steal?"... To reply, "My child it is because we have a free will", is no different than answering, "because they can". That is not really an answer to the question. Moreover, if that answer is accepted as valid, it will in effect end the excellent questioning, leaving the child ignorant even though they think they have gained knowledge. However, if I answer, "because they are not led by the Love that is God", then the child is left to ponder how important God is in the everyday life of every individual and also the implication that there exists other powers that rule over mankind that are not of God. The child will then seek to not be ruled by any other power than God, lest the child become a servant of evil.

The fact is, we have wills, not free wills. This is self-evident. Politics are inevitable and God sits at the Highest seat of power. We are always servants to a master and it is a vanity to think we are not governed by anyone or anything higher than ourselves. Romans 6:16. Colossians 1:13. Romans 1:21.

I will take the liberty of saying that If I believed in free will, I would reply to this by saying that we freely choose between God and the devil, between Light and darkness. This is conflating the existence of two options with the ability to reason. That is a logical fallacy.This however is also not logical in scripture even though we do have the ability to reason.. For I see that God rules by Truth and the devil rules by deception. Therefore one serving darkness is tricked into it, even so that they believe they are serving the Light. Luke 11:35. The Truth is eternal, consequently the idea that a man is self governing apart from God is not sustainable nor logical. That is why free will must always seek to prove it's self through the denial of God rather than through obedience. That is disconcerting. Hence it is a vanity which requires that God be not esteemed as God.

We will make moral choices and that is inevitable, and therefore these choices are made out of necessity not out of a free will. Moreover, the free will theology does not answer why a person chooses one way or another. It therefore deflects the exploration of what is at the heart of one's decision making process. It is an equivocation posing as an answer. You touched on this somewhat when you mentioned that the carnal mind reasons differently than the spiritual mind. This therefore does not constitute free choice since the carnal mind cannot choose to be spiritual and be subject to God. Romans 8:7. This does however verify that Satan rules through deception wherein people think they serve themselves but are servants of sin. We also see this, in that men of God are persecuted by those who think they are serving God.

Since the bible testifies to those who will persecute those preaching the Gospel, all the while thinking they are serving God, it cannot be said that they choose to do so via a free will. Moreover this shows men cannot freely choose to fellowship with God, since they think they are already in fellowship with God, even as they persecute those who actually are. This cannot be denied in any honest appraisal.

Respectfully, you probably believe mankind cannot have fellowship with God unless he comes freely or willingly to God. Sounds good, except this also is vanity. God chooses the lowly to reveal Himself. Of course they come willingly after being shown how they were deceived. 1 Corinthians 1:27. 1 Corinthians 1:23. John 6: 43-45. In fact it is only because of the promise to Abraham that any are saved. Galatians 4:23. Romans 9:15-16. Titus 3:5.

Our lives were never given to us to do whatever we want to do with them and nor is God any man's prerogative. The very notion that I can choose to accept God or deny God is unfaithful in it's concept since He is my sentience. To ponder such a thought as valid, is to not esteem God as God and place the creation over the Creator. This thought was first introduced to mankind in the garden of Eden by Satan and it is the cause of the fall of man. I call it a foundational lie.

 

[FreeGrace]

The fact is, we have wills, not free wills. This is self-evident. Politics are inevitable and God sits at the Highest seat of power. We are always servants to a master and it is a vanity to think we are not governed by anyone or anything higher than ourselves. Romans 6:16. Colossians 1:13. Romans 1:21.

I will take the liberty of saying that If I believed in free will, I would reply to this by saying that we freely choose between God and the devil, between Light and darkness. This is conflating the existence of two options with the ability to reason. That is a logical fallacy.

Respectfully, Deut 11 and 30 are all about choice. God giving people clear choices. How is that not free will?

Concerning the ability to reason, I submit Isaiah 1:18-20:
18 “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, “Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool. 19 “If you consent and obey, You will eat the best of the land; 20 “But if you refuse and rebel, You will be devoured by the sword.” Truly, the mouth of the LORD has spoken.

What I see here is a clear appeal by the LORD for people to reason together with Him (v.18) and 2 clear choices:
to either consent and obey, or to refuse and rebel.

How is this not free will?

 

[eddif]

Galatians 3:13
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Romans 3:31
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Jesus bore our depravity ( though as scarlet).
Through faith.

Ephesians 2:9
Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Faith in the works of Jesus Christ.

Depravity was born by Jesus.

Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Will a person choose to open the door.

eddif

 

[childeye]

Respectfully, Deut 11 and 30 are all about choice. God giving people clear choices. How is that not free will?

Concerning the ability to reason, I submit Isaiah 1:18-20:
18 “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, “Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool. 19 “If you consent and obey, You will eat the best of the land; 20 “But if you refuse and rebel, You will be devoured by the sword.” Truly, the mouth of the LORD has spoken.

What I see here is a clear appeal by the LORD for people to reason together with Him (v.18) and 2 clear choices:
to either consent and obey, or to refuse and rebel.

How is this not free will?

First off I feel we are dealing with semantics and should not be conflating free will with the ability to reason. There are two definitions given for the term "will". One is desire, and one is the ability to reason. The scriptures usually refer to "the will" as one's desire, and not to their ability to reason. There is no free desire, that is to say that there is no desire freely wandering about changing from heterosexual to homosexual, or from unfaithfulness to faithfulness freely. Our conflicting desire is either to do God's will or the will of the flesh, and sin is neither rational nor reasonable when exposed by the knowledge of God. This is shown by the fact that the carnal mind reasons differently than the spiritual mind. Romans 8:7. There is no free reasoning either since our reasoning is subject to our knowledge and ignorance of Truth. Hence God says "let us reason together" because our reasoning needs the knowledge of God for wisdom, and His Truth is able to dispel darkness through revealing hypocrisy. All lies end in hypocrisy.

I take note that in Isaiah 19 are the two clear directions placed before the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. The fact that these two clear directions are presented is not proof of a free will, only of two clear choices being presented that men did not choose wisely from. That is, they lacked the wisdom to choose wisely. In fact they rejected wisdom and knowledge which is not rational. Moreover, this is a choice made out of necessity and is therefore an ultimatum, consent or rebel. At any rate, Only a will is necessary to choose, not a free will, whether it be defined as desire or the ability to reason. It does not preclude the existence of powers of Light and darkness in high places working behind the scenes.

I believe that the consent God is looking for is applied to His request to reason together so that though their sins be as scarlet, they will be as white as snow. The implications being that sins of scarlet cannot be changed into snow without consenting to reason together with God. How can sins be as white as snow? Because when a person finds out that all sin ends in hypocrisy, and therefore is based upon a lie that is reasoned upon as true, then they will know they were deceived by sin and it was not them that did it...Romans 7:11,Romans 7:17, Romans 7:20

Hence the knowledge of God is what sets the will free and there can be no free will apart from God.
2 Corinthians 10:5
Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

 

[childeye]

Galatians 3:13
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Romans 3:31
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Jesus bore our depravity ( though as scarlet).
Through faith.

Ephesians 2:9
Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Faith in the works of Jesus Christ.

Depravity was born by Jesus.

Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Will a person choose to open the door.

eddif

Great post. Will a person choose to open the door? Indeed some will and some won't. But why does one choose to open and another does not? Because they have a free will is not an answer. Which leads me to the question of why did I open the door? Why did I recognize God in the Christ? My most sincere answer is because the Word come in the flesh was recognized by the Word of God in my heart. I did not actually ever choose to open the door by a free will since I could not choose otherwise. John 8:47. John 10:26-27

 

[eddif]

John 15:16
Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

The little flock.

eddif

 

[FreeGrace]

First off I feel we are dealing with semantics and should not be conflating free will with the ability to reason.

I don't think I have conflated them.

There are two definitions given for the term "will". One is desire, and one is the ability to reason.

Could you cite your source for these definitions, please?

My understanding of "free will" is nothing more than free choice between available options. As I showed from Deut 11 and 30.

Hence God says "let us reason together" because our reasoning needs the knowledge of God for wisdom, and His Truth is able to dispel darkness through revealing hypocrisy. All lies end in hypocrisy.

Actually, God appeals to reasoning together just before He provides two clear options of choice for man: to obey or to rebel. And He gives the consequences of both. And therefore, man has a free choice.

I take note that in Isaiah 19 are the two clear directions placed before the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. The fact that these two clear directions are presented is not proof of a free will, only of two clear choices being presented that men did not choose wisely from.

I disagree. It is clearly evidence of free will, or God would not have offered them.

That is, they lacked the wisdom to choose wisely. In fact they rejected wisdom and knowledge which is not rational.

Apparently you are trying to "read between the lines" and determining that people cannot choose wisely. That would be an opinion only.

Moreover, this is a choice made out of necessity and is therefore an ultimatum, consent or rebel. At any rate, Only a will is necessary to choose, not a free will, whether it be defined as desire or the ability to reason.

This makes no sense. In order to choose anything at all demands the freedom to do so.

It does not preclude the existence of powers of Light and darkness in high places working behind the scenes.

So, apparently you think that all of man's choices really emanate from the existence of powers of Light and/or darkness??? Really?

I believe that the consent God is looking for is applied to His request to reason together so that though their sins be as scarlet, they will be as white as snow. The implications being that sins of scarlet cannot be changed into snow without consenting to reason together with God. How can sins be as white as snow? Because when a person finds out that all sin ends in hypocrisy, and therefore is based upon a lie that is reasoned upon as true, then they will know they were deceived by sin and it was not them that did it...Romans 7:11,Romans 7:17, Romans 7:20

The consent that God offers as a choice is "to consent and obey". As opposed to "refuse and rebel". Again, clear and opposite choices, with the consequences of both given clearly.

Just as clear choices were given in Deut 11 and 30.

Hence the knowledge of God is what sets the will free and there can be no free will apart from God.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. God has given man the freedom to make choices. It isn't the "knowledge of God" that "sets the will free", and I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean.

God has given mankind an intellect, with which to reason and choose.

Can you find Scripture that indicates that man's choices are not his own? That would support your view.

2 Corinthians 10:5
Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Great verse. Which has nothing to do with man's freedom to choose.

 

[gr8grace3]

Great post. Will a person choose to open the door? Indeed some will and some won't. But why does one choose to open and another does not?

Rev 3:20 is a return to fellowship verse. It is not a salvation verse. These believers are already loved, and are close to divine discipline from their Lord, they are called to repent(Choice). Rev 3:19
Nowhere are we called to "open a door" to be saved.

Because they have a free will is not an answer. Which leads me to the question of why did I open the door? Why did I recognize God in the Christ? My most sincere answer is because the Word come in the flesh was recognized by the Word of God in my heart.

Jer 17:9~~New American Standard Bible
"The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?

I did not actually ever choose to open the door by a free will since I could not choose otherwise. John 8:47. John 10:26-27

Again Rev 3:20 is a return to fellowship verse. But if we are talking about salvation as in Acts 16:31, and you had no choice or could not choose otherwise in believing because of John 8:47 and John 10:26-27 you were already:

1. Of God.
2.His Sheep
3.Hearing His voice.
4.following Him.
All before you believed?..Per John 8:47; John 10:26-27

 

[childeye]

I don't think I have conflated them.

To be clear, the mind reasons and comes to conclusions and makes choices/decisions based upon whatever knowledge it possesses. Consequently, a more knowledgeable mind makes more knowledgeable decisions/choices and an ignorant mind makes ignorant choices/decisions. I hope we can agree on this. Desire however, is more a matter of what is in the heart, spiritually speaking that is. Hence if I value money for myself over the Love for others, my reasoning will reflect that and also will my actions testify to this. I therefore do not wish to conflate the ability to reason with the desire that the reasoning serves since the term "will" uses both to derive it's meaning. This is harder to do than it sounds. Why? Because how we reason in our minds can change our desires in our heart, and what we desire in our hearts can change the way we reason in our mind. It would help our discussion if we stick to the moral aspects of the will as this is what pertains to Godliness and ungodliness or spiritual things.

Could you cite your source for these definitions, please?

I am not using any specific source, but it would be my pleasure to provide you with some dictionary references that would support my understanding of how most people understand the terms and it's different meanings and consequently the differing connotations that can be construed and conflated with other connotations. This is taken from Merriam Webster online. I will not post all of it since I would rather keep it as simple as possible.
will
verb\wəl, (ə)l,əl,ˈwil\
pastwould\wəd, (ə)d,ˈwu̇d\present singular & pluralwill
Definition ofWILL
transitive verb
: desire,wish<call it what youwill>
verbal auxiliary
1
—used to express desire, choice, willingness, consent, or in negative constructions refusal<no onewouldtake the job><if wewillall do our best><willyou please stop that racket>

My understanding of "free will" is nothing more than free choice between available options. As I showed from Deut 11 and 30.

I understand. that this is how you view "free will". In fact I would surmise that most people do. I submit that people take for granted that we have a free will but have not thought through what the implications are. For no one can deny God without first thinking themselves smarter than Him. Moreover the term "God" is an axiom. Therefore if you don't follow God you are by default following a false god. I would ask you to take note that you have now moved too soon to claiming the existence of a "free" will and a "free" choice simply because a choice is inevitable as seen in Deuteronomy 11 and 30. I've already established that the term "will" means the ability to choose as well as "desire". The term "free" is not necessary for the choice to happen nor the desire to obey or not obey God. What is the free meant to imply? I've also established two wills in mankind in conflict with one another, the carnal vs. the spiritual. Romans 8:7. So I would like to hear your response when I ask you, to which will are you referring when you say that it is free?

I believe you are saying that this choice will be made by a will that is not coerced or influenced by any other person or thing including God or flesh or any false god. This is from Merriam Webster dictionary.

coerceverbco·erce\kō-ˈərs\
: to make (someone) do something by using force or threats
: to get (something) by using force or threats

From Deuteronomy 11:26-28
26 Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse;
27 A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you this day:
28 And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known.

Is this not the promise of destruction if one does not obey God and the promise of good things if you obey? All that's really left in the will is whether you believe in Him as God or you think He is a liar. Righteousness is by faith

If as a parent you said to your child, "don't play with fire or you may burn down the house and kill the family"... Do you feel you have given him a choice of two options, or is that a command that you expect him to respect and follow? Rebellion against good authority is not a choice from a free will. It is a choice from a wicked and rebellious will. It is a will that desires to be it's own boss and resents good and righteous authority for the sake of establishing one's own autonomy. If he chooses to obey, it is because his will is trusting and faithful in his parents guidance and he is thankful for your loving guidance. One choice is made out of a S.pirit of darkness and one choice is from a Spirit of Light. Righteousness is by faith in God as God, not by free will. Hence unrighteousness is by unfaith in God as God, not by free will.

Actually, God appeals to reasoning together just before He provides two clear options of choice for man: to obey or to rebel. And He gives the consequences of both. And therefore, man has a free choice.

I said that. It is wrong to consider whether to obey God or not. Therefore free choice is vanity.

I disagree. It is clearly evidence of free will, or God would not have offered them.

Respectfully, When God commands He is not offering. He's telling you how it is and what's going down. Our disability to not believe Him does not constitute free will.

Apparently you are trying to "read between the lines" and determining that people cannot choose wisely. That would be an opinion only.

Respectfully, I am confidently saying that without wisdom wise choices are not made. That is self-evident. Moreover it is not wise to disobey God for the sake of being one's own master. God gives wisdom. 1 Corinthians 1:30,Romans 1:21.
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Continued:

 

[eddif]

John10:1
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

There is a good bit of complexity to the door. The Holy Spirit may enter through the door (he has been with you and will be in you).

eddif

 

[FreeGrace]

To be clear, the mind reasons and comes to conclusions and makes choices/decisions based upon whatever knowledge it possesses. Consequently, a more knowledgeable mind makes more knowledgeable decisions/choices and an ignorant mind makes ignorant choices/decisions. I hope we can agree on this.

Sure.

Desire however, is more a matter of what is in the heart, spiritually speaking that is. Hence if I value money for myself over the Love for others, my reasoning will reflect that and also will my actions testify to this. I therefore do not wish to conflate the ability to reason with the desire that the reasoning serves since the term "will" uses both to derive it's meaning. This is harder to do than it sounds. Why? Because how we reason in our minds can change our desires in our heart, and what we desire in our hearts can change the way we reason in our mind. It would help our discussion if we stick to the moral aspects of the will as this is what pertains to Godliness and ungodliness or spiritual things.

If we're speaking of "free will" relative to believing the promise of God regarding salvation, I don't believe any of this is relevant. Here's why: God has made a promise to give eternal life to those who have believed in His Son (Jn 3:15,16,5:24, 6:40), so that one will be saved from the lake of fire Rev 20:15). This isn't a "spiritual issue". It's literally a life and death issue. Spiritual issues are only relevant after one believes.

I am not using any specific source, but it would be my pleasure to provide you with some dictionary references that would support my understanding of how most people understand the terms and it's different meanings and consequently the differing connotations that can be construed and conflated with other connotations. This is taken from Merriam Webster online. I will not post all of it since I would rather keep it as simple as possible.
will
verb\wəl, (ə)l,əl,ˈwil\
pastwould\wəd, (ə)d,ˈwu̇d\present singular & pluralwill
Definition ofWILL
transitive verb
: desire,wish<call it what youwill>
verbal auxiliary
1
—used to express desire, choice, willingness, consent, or in negative constructions refusal<no onewouldtake the job><if wewillall do our best><willyou please stop that racket>

OK, there it is: choice, consent/refusal.

I said this:
"My understanding of "free will" is nothing more than free choice between available options. As I showed from Deut 11 and 30."

I understand. that this is how you view "free will". In fact I would surmise that most people do.

And so does the Bible, as both Deut 11 and 30 show.

I submit that people take for granted that we have a free will but have not thought through what the implications are.

Uh, the implications are the consequences of said choice.

For no one can deny God without first thinking themselves smarter than Him.

Of course they who refuse God's promises do that. I don't see how that has any relevance to the fact of free will.

Moreover the term "God" is an axiom. Therefore if you don't follow God you are by default following a false god.

Again, what is the relevance of this to the fact of free will?

I would ask you to take note that you have now moved too soon to claiming the existence of a "free" will and a "free" choice simply because a choice is inevitable as seen in Deuteronomy 11 and 30.

Nope. Not too soon at all. And there was no need to put your quotes around "free", since our choices are free. I've never spent one thin dime on any choice I made. Not to say that I didn't spend money on a number of my choices. But no money went to make any choice. ;)

I've already established that the term "will" means the ability to choose as well as "desire". The term "free" is not necessary for the choice to happen nor the desire to obey or not obey God.

Yes, it is necessary to include the word 'free', since Calvinists don't believe that our choices were freely made, but that God actually "determined" our choices for us.

What is the free meant to imply? I've also established two wills in mankind in conflict with one another, the carnal vs. the spiritual. Romans 8:7. So I would like to hear your response when I ask you, to which will are you referring when you say that it is free?

Both. Can you demonstrate that either one isn't free?

I believe you are saying that this choice will be made by a will that is not coerced or influenced by any other person or thing including God or flesh or any false god.

No, I am not saying that. All choices are influenced by something. Whether the actually things being considered, or whatnot. If any choice is coerced, then it isn't free. And anything that is coerced cannot be called a choice.

From Deuteronomy 11:26-28
26 Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse;
27 A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you this day:
28 And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known.

Is this not the promise of destruction if one does not obey God and the promise of good things if you obey? All that's really left in the will is whether you believe in Him as God or you think He is a liar.

Bingo!! And that's the choice we make. Do we believe God or not? The atheist doesn't believe there is a God, so of course he won't believe anything attributed to God. So his choice isn't coerced at all.

Do you think Deut 11:26-28 is coercive? If so, how so?

Righteousness is by faith

OK. But what does this have to do with one's free choices?

If as a parent you said to your child, "don't play with fire or you may burn down the house and kill the family"... Do you feel you have given him a choice of two options, or is that a command that you expect him to respect and follow?

It's actually both. If, as a good parent, the ability to start a fire is eliminated from the child, then there isn't any choice.

Rebellion against good authority is not a choice from a free will.

I disagree strongly.

It is a choice from a wicked and rebellious will.

Which is also free.

It is a will that desires to be it's own boss and resents good and righteous authority for the sake of establishing one's own autonomy.

Which is also free.

If he chooses to obey, it is because his will is trusting and faithful in his parents guidance and he is thankful for your loving guidance. One choice is made out of a S.pirit of darkness and one choice is from a Spirit of Light. Righteousness is by faith in God as God, not by free will. Hence unrighteousness is by unfaith in God as God, not by free will.

It seems you're confused about "good will vs bad will".

I said that. It is wrong to consider whether to obey God or not. Therefore free choice is vanity.

Why is it "wrong to consider whether to obey God or not"?? God Himself gave us the consequences of either choice: blessings for obedience and cursings for rebellion. Shouldn't one consider these choices? God Himself even appeals to us to "reason together". That IS considering what He has said.

I believe you are confused about the matter.

Respectfully, When God commands He is not offering. He's telling you how it is and what's going down. Our disability to not believe Him does not constitute free will.

Where do you get the notion of "our disability to not bleiebve Him". And ALL commands are a choice. Because all commands can be disobeyed.

Respectfully, I am confidently saying that without wisdom wise choices are not made. That is self-evident.

Yes. And totally irrelevant to any discussion about free choice.

Moreover it is not wise to disobey God for the sake of being one's own master.

Yes. That is self evident, and totally irrelevant to any discussion about free choice.

God gives wisdom. 1 Corinthians 1:30,Romans 1:21.
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Continued:

Not following whatever point you're trying to make here.