Total Depravity

[childeye]

I said this:
"No ruler can force or cause the thoughts of their subjects. Nor does God. Except on occasion, as Scripture notes."

Unless you have achieved 'sinless perfection', how valuable is that conviction of sin?

God is not like any other ruler. As God He can change a person and rule from the inside.
God is always of the Highest value to me. That is carried in the very meaning of the term "God". But I do value His correction and would rather not forget what I was since that has value too.

Do you provide material substance in every circumstance?

If I have it.

Does this include those times when you sin?

Trick question. I don't sin willingly. If I do sin, God shows me.

You've not proven your theory.

Not according to your understanding of the term. But according to the dictionary term I have.

People freely choose all the time to believe in Christ as Savior or not. And again, the issue isn't about "choosing to have faith". This is a red herring. People choose to believe or not. To "have faith" refers to a noun. Believing is a verb. They are different. Please don't confuse the two.

One can't believe God without faith in His Character. Note the inaccuracy of these statements: The people believed and followed the man they had no faith in. The man had great faith in the God that he did not believe in.

You haven't proven your theory. That our wills aren't free. Again, my use of "free will" only refers to having free choices. Our choices are free. God has offered choices, and man is free to choose between those choices.

Yes, of course to you it would appear that I have not proven my theory since I am talking about the dictionary term of free will, while you are using your own definition.

I've already given you my definition. Our choices are free. You have not demonstrated otherwise. I'm not interested in what any dictionary says about 'free will'. The issue is about choice. God gives choices. Man selects from those choices.

We are talking past one another here. I don't view commands as God giving choices. I think He gives us commands so that we follow them just as I do with my own children.

The point is that they did fall away. They weren't forced to. It was a choice. They lost faith. The reason isn't important nor relevant. The point is that falling away was a choice. Freely made. Without force. God didn't force them to, obviously, but neither can Satan force anyone to lose faith. If he could, he'd be doing that to every believer on earth.

I think Satan is constantly trying to create enmity between man and God. 1 Peter 5:8. Every waking moment is a choice happening. I know that. So when you say it was a choice, I know that. We're talking past each other because of this. There are reasons why people choose one way or the other is what I am addressing here, while you keep saying it's a choice as if I don't know that.

Paul's point in Rom 7 is about the 2 natures within man. The sin nature and the new nature. They war against each other. Rom 7:23


But our flesh doesn't "die" in any permanent sense. As long as believers are in the body, the issue of sin is always present. It seems you are creating another straw man.

You're right, the flesh is not dead entirely. I should have said, if God puts us into an incorruptible body then we would be free from the free will.

What??! The Bible tells us what the will of God is:
John 6:40 - “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

My statement is in contrast to the will of the flesh. Let me rephrase. The will of the flesh is the false will. In other words it lead us to death.

Please cite a verse to support this statement.

Timothy 2:25-26, Romans 8:1-14, John 6:63, John 1:4, John 8:31-34, Romans 5:21.

What does this have to do with choice? The whole issue is what man chooses; either to accept God's will, or to accept one's own will (desire).

I really think we should move on. We've already agreed many times that everything is a choice. That is not the issue. The op is about depravity. As such the depraved are without Truth and choose accordingly.

This is frankly impossible. It is only until one believes that one is even capable of loving God. I think you have it totally backward. Do you have a verse that supports the idea that anyone believes because they love God? I'm talking about initial faith, not the on-going day by day faith.


But you had to believe that before you responded in love. If you didn't believe what He did for you, there would be no love, right?

The fact is Jesus and God are one. To love the son is to Love the Father, and to Love the Father is to Love the son. Personally I saw the Love that is divine on the cross for he said, "forgive them for they know not what they do", and I Loved Him.
John 8:42.Romans 8:28.
I said this:

Why do you suppose any of the characteristics are the fruit of the Spirit?

Because without the Spirit there are no such fruits.

I said this:
"What do you mean by "predetermined"? Do you mean caused, or that God already knew how men would choose? There's a very big difference. Please clarify."

I wish you had clarified and answered my question.

If you recall this is a definition from the dictionary. So I can only say what I understand it to mean. Predetermined events are events that happened that cause choices to be made that would not have been made otherwise. For example, because God sent the Christ, people preached the Gospel, and because the Gospel was preached some believed and they were reborn of the spirit of God. And because they were reborn, they took on the Character of the Father and all their choices were altered from what they otherwise would have been had the Christ never come. Wars were fought and people killed because of his Name which events would not have happened otherwise.

Also determinism would include such things as because he was so dumb, he stuck his hand in the fire. After that he never stuck his hand in the fire again. He was hungry so he chose to go find food. He was thirsty so he chose to find some drink.

Sounds like we're just a bunch of pre-programmed robots. I'm not buying it.

No, not exactly. Events do alter what otherwise would have been history. Fathers teach their sons and it is beneficial for the childs future. And therefore children that are neglected produce the adverse outcomes. That is not unlike programming. Look at cults. People can be brainwashed. Propaganda and advertising use techniques to create the desired effects.

Are you still Catholic?

No.

Neither verse supports your claim here. If they do, please provide clear explanation of how they do.

No explanation will suffice since what you mean by freely and what the dictionary means, are two different things.

No, please research the words believe and faith. One is a verb, the other a noun. They aren't the same. When one believes, that is an action. And we choose to believe what we believe. No one else is forcing us. In fact, it is utterly impossible to force someone else to believe anything.

I said belief/trust/faith are the same. They are all nouns. To believe is an action. When Jesus says, "believe in me", he is saying, "trust in me". I trust in him because of his words that ring true and his acts of Love. And because he is trustworthy I trust him. Just as true worship is drawn out by the object of worship.

What verse indicates this clearly?

No verse would indicate this clearly. That is what the dictionary meaning of the word free will implies. Otherwise it would be determinism.

This is confused. To believe God is an action. To have faith is a noun. Faith is what is believed. To believe God means one has faith in God. One doesn't cause the other, as you seem to advocate.

Look at what you say here: "To believe God means to have faith in God". This is a true statement. Now conversely I shall say "To not believe God means to not have faith in Him". This therefore is also true. Consequently, one can't choose to believe God without faith in God. And that is what I said.
I think our posts are too long. This is supposed to be about depravity and I get the feeling that the moderator feels we are going in circles. If you have any more questions, please PM me and I would be happy to address them.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"No ruler can force or cause the thoughts of their subjects. Nor does God. Except on occasion, as Scripture notes."

Unless you have achieved 'sinless perfection', how valuable is that conviction of sin?"

God is not like any other ruler. As God He can change a person and rule from the inside.

First, I note that you didn't answer my question. Second, God DOES change a person who has believed. It's called "regeneration", or the "new birth". And as to His "ruling from the inside", that only occurs WHEN the believe is being "filled with the Spirit" (Eph 5:18), and "walking by means of the Spirit" (Gal 5:16), and NOT "grieving the Spirit" (#ph 4:30) or "quenching the Spirit" (1 Thess 5:19).

God does not over-rule our choices, if you thought so.

Trick question. I don't sin willingly. If I do sin, God shows me.

Not a trick question, and your answer is false. Everyone sins willingly. Every sin we do is a choice. No one forces you to sin. You choose your sins. That IS willingly.

But your answer means that your your sins are "unwillingly" done. How does that work?

Not according to your understanding of the term. But according to the dictionary term I have.

I said you haven't proven your theory. Your response to my comment isn't a defense.

Yes, of course to you it would appear that I have not proven my theory since I am talking about the dictionary term of free will, while you are using your own definition.

Let's just get to the point here. Are man's choices freely made or not? That's all I'm interested in.

We are talking past one another here. I don't view commands as God giving choices.

But all commands actually create choice. Either obey the command or don't. That should be obvious.

I think He gives us commands so that we follow them just as I do with my own children.

Sure. Do you children 100% of the time follow your commands?

My statement is in contrast to the will of the flesh. Let me rephrase. The will of the flesh is the false will. In other words it lead us to death.

Anything that leads one to death cannot be said to be "false". It is still a real will. Not a so-called "false will", whatever that means.

You said this:
"and the only will deemed as free and living according to scripture."

And I asked for Scripture to support your claim.

Timothy 2:25-26, Romans 8:1-14, John 6:63, John 1:4, John 8:31-34, Romans 5:21.

2 Tim 2:25-26 - 25with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,26and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will. I don't see anything about one's will being free here.

Rom 8:1-14 Nor here.
John 6:63 - “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. Again, nothing here about one's will being free. It is speaking about regeneration.
Jn 1:4 - In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. Again, nothing about a free will. It speaks of eternal lfie.
John 8:31-34 Here, John notes that "many" in that crowd of Jews did believe in Jesus. And Jesus responds to those believing Jews in v.32 about being free if they know the truth. From v.33ff the discussion is back to the unbelieving Jews.
Rom 5:21 - 1so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Again, nothing here about a free will. The verse speaks of eternal life.

You have not supported your claim from Scriprure yet.

I really think we should move on. We've already agreed many times that everything is a choice. That is not the issue. The op is about depravity. As such the depraved are without Truth and choose accordingly.

Well, you brought up "free will". Most people deal with free will as either man believes freely, or that God actually causes man's belief by regenerating him so he can believe. The point of total depravity per reformed theology is that man cannot believe. He is incapable of believing, which is why God must regenerate him first. Which is all wrong and not supported by Scripture.

The meaning of total depravity is that man is unable to save himself. And his free act of believing in Christ doesn't save him. God saves him. Because "God is pleased to save those who believe". 1 Cor 1:21

Because without the Spirit there are no such fruits.

Would you please read Gal 5:22-23 more carefully. The word "fruit" is SINGULAR, not plural. It's all one fruit.

 

[childeye]

I said this:
"No ruler can force or cause the thoughts of their subjects. Nor does God. Except on occasion, as Scripture notes."

Unless you have achieved 'sinless perfection', how valuable is that conviction of sin?"

First, I note that you didn't answer my question. Second, God DOES change a person who has believed. It's called "regeneration", or the "new birth". And as to His "ruling from the inside", that only occurs WHEN the believe is being "filled with the Spirit" (Eph 5:18), and "walking by means of the Spirit" (Gal 5:16), and NOT "grieving the Spirit" (#ph 4:30) or "quenching the Spirit" (1 Thess 5:19).

I did answer your question. I said the highest value.

God does not over-rule our choices, if you thought so.

Indeed He does, by exposing hypocrisy that we are otherwise blind to. This brings Godly sorrow and a true repentance.

Not a trick question, and your answer is false. Everyone sins willingly. Every sin we do is a choice. No one forces you to sin. You choose your sins. That IS willingly.

My answer is not false, it is true and with all honesty. Maybe you sin willingly. That is, that you want to sin. Rather than do good to others you would rather hurt others. To sin is to do unto others what you would not want done to you. Anyway, that is what I must conclude from your response. Personally, I don't believe you want to hurt others. Hence I don't believe that you sin willingly as you claim.

But your answer means that your sins are "unwillingly" done. How does that work?

I have a tendency to be impatient. For example, driving in my car I may begin to get angry at the way someone is driving. But then the Holy Spirit comes in and interrupts my anger by reminding me of the things I am not seeing. Perhaps that person is old and doesn't have the same driving capabilities as myself which I take for granted. This dissuades my anger and causes me to ponder what a jerk I would be without the Holy Spirit.

I said you haven't proven your theory. Your response to my comment isn't a defense.

It's not a theory. There is a God and there is a devil and there is a will of the flesh. There is Truth which pertains to knowledge and there is ignorance which enables lies to be persuasive. All of these effect our decisions. You have already admitted all of this and I have already supplied ample scripture to back it up. I am not trying to prove to you that we don't make choices. I have already said numerous times that every waking moment can be construed as a choice happening.

Let's just get to the point here. Are man's choices freely made or not? That's all I'm interested in.

Some are, but moral choices are the providence of Love which restrains people from doing evil and compels people to do Good. Contrary to God is the Carnal will which is a by product of being made of flesh. The term "free" is an equivocation when placed in front of the word will, since the word "will" already suffices to say we have the ability to choose. Moreover "Free" is a relative term which can only be applied to describe something it is free from. The dictionary definition describes what it must be free from to be deemed as free. I have no idea what it is free from in your definition, since you say all choices are freely made. If so then just remove the word free since it applies to nothing.

But all commands actually create choice. Either obey the command or don't. That should be obvious.

I've said this already. When it comes to the commandments of God, Love God with all you heart mind and soul and your neighbor as yourself, it's the devil that has proposed from the beginning that we have a choice. Hence Jesus says that He is the Father of sin. John 8:44. 1 John 3:8.

Sure. Do you children 100% of the time follow your commands?

I can't say they do 100% of the time, but for the most part yes. I can't recall them ever out right disobeying me, but who can see all the things they do in their lives except God. But I'm confident that if I asked them if they felt I had given them a choice, they would not say yes.

Anything that leads one to death cannot be said to be "false". It is still a real will. Not a so-called "false will", whatever that means.

A false will is like Satan's will, full of falsehood. It's a real false will that exists in reality.

You said this:
"and the only will deemed as free and living according to scripture."

And I asked for Scripture to support your claim.

2 Tim 2:25-26 - 25with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,26and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will. I don't see anything about one's will being free here.

The phrases "escape from the snare of the devil", and, "held captive to do his will"... clearly Implies they need to be set free from doing the devil's will. Through the "Knowledge of the Truth", which implies they are following lies. That "they may come to their senses" implies they do not contemplate their own demise. We know following the devil away from God leads to death.

Rom 8:1-14 Nor here

.
Romans 8:7 clearly says to serve the will of the flesh leads to death while following the Spirit leads to life.

John 6:63 - “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. Again, nothing here about one's will being free. It is speaking about regeneration.

2 Timothy 2:25-26 above speaks about being captive to do Satan's will. I already established that freedom lies in the Truth of God.

Jn 1:4 - In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. Again, nothing about a free will. It speaks of eternal lfie.

Exactly. See up there, "in Him was life". His will is the living will in mankind.

John 8:31-34 Here, John notes that "many" in that crowd of Jews did believe in Jesus. And Jesus responds to those believing Jews in v.32 about being free if they know the truth. From v.33ff the discussion is back to the unbelieving Jews.

Here Jesus says the truth will set you free. Free from what, ask the Jews. Jesus replies, whoever commits sin is the servant of sin. So Jesus himself verifies that the will that serves sin is not free and like 2 Timothy 2:25-26 above they need the Truth to be free.

Rom 5:21 - 1so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Again, nothing here about a free will. The verse speaks of eternal life.

The phrase "sin reigned in death" shows that men were being controlled by sin unto death just as Jesus just got finished saying of how sinners were servants of sin that needed the Truth to be set free.

You have not supported your claim from Scripture yet.

So what we have, is scripture showing that the will that is led by sin and the devil, is serving a will that leads to death and needs to be set free through the Truth.
Hence to follow God is the only free and living will according to scripture.

Well, you brought up "free will". Most people deal with free will as either man believes freely, or that God actually causes man's belief by regenerating him so he can believe. The point of total depravity per reformed theology is that man cannot believe. He is incapable of believing, which is why God must regenerate him first. Which is all wrong and not supported by Scripture.

The meaning of total depravity is that man is unable to save himself. And his free act of believing in Christ doesn't save him. God saves him. Because "God is pleased to save those who believe". 1 Cor 1:21

Yes I brought up free will as pertains to depravity. I don't think men are capable of believing in the Christ apart from God's Spirit. I don't see how it would even be possible that men could recognize the divine Love without having something to recognize it with. John 1:5. John 8:47. John 6:64-65. John 6:43-45. Romans 9:15-17.1 Corinthians 1:27-30. Ephesians 1:4. Ephesians 2:8. Isaiah 42:7.

It pleased God to save those whom He had chosen to believe, through the foolishness of preaching, which were not of the wise or mighty, but were of the foolish, weak, and lowly, so as to show that the foolishness of God was greater than the wisdom of men, making it so that no man could glory over another, but so that only God alone would be glorified. 1 Corinthians 1:20-29. Romans 8:30. 1 Corinthians 7:22.2 Timothy 1:9. 2 Peter 1:3. John 10:
25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:3 and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out
4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Would you please read Gal 5:22-23 more carefully. The word "fruit" is SINGULAR, not plural. It's all one fruit.

I appreciate the instruction. But please tell me the significance of the difference.

 

[FreeGrace]

You said this:
"Every prayer I express is not without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. God is never not in my thoughts since I serve Him and acknowledge Him in all of my ways."

And I aksed this:
"Does this include those times when you sin?"

I did answer your question. I said the highest value.

How does "the highest value" answer my question?

My answer is not false, it is true and with all honesty. Maybe you sin willingly. That is, that you want to sin.

We always do what we want. Including sin. You are basically claiming that all your sins are accidents, or that you really didn't mean to do it. Yeah, right. Every sin is a choice.

Rather than do good to others you would rather hurt others. To sin is to do unto others what you would not want done to you. Anyway, that is what I must conclude from your response. Personally, I don't believe you want to hurt others. Hence I don't believe that you sin willingly as you claim.

Of course I don't want to hurt others. But sin does hurt others. And the sin was freely chosen to do.

A false will is like Satan's will, full of falsehood. It's a real false will that exists in reality.

A "real false"??? Really? That is contradicting. Something that is false isn't real.

Here Jesus says the truth will set you free. Free from what, ask the Jews.

No, wrong suggestion. It was the unbelieving Jews who responded to what Jesus told the new believers, in v.33. They thought they were free, yet they, as unbelievers, were slaves to their sin.

Yes I brought up free will as pertains to depravity. I don't think men are capable of believing in the Christ apart from God's Spirit.

I agree. John 14:8,9 speaks to the ministry of the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit does not cause belief, as some think.

It pleased God to save those whom He had chosen to believe,

I'm interrupting your sentence right here because you've misquoted 1 Cor 1:21. Neither this verse, nor any other, says that God chooses who will believe, but that is what your sentence is saying. That is wrong.

I appreciate the instruction. But please tell me the significance of the difference.

They all go together. They aren't separate. When a believer is "filled with the Spirit" per Eph 5:18, and "walking by means of the Spirit" per Gal 5:16, all parts of the fruit will be in evidence.

It's not about which fruit, but THE fruit.

 

[childeye]

You said this:
"Every prayer I express is not without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. God is never not in my thoughts since I serve Him and acknowledge Him in all of my ways."

And I aksed this:
"Does this include those times when you sin?"

How does "the highest value" answer my question?

This is a case of misunderstanding. I was answering your question, "Unless you have achieved 'sinless perfection', how valuable is that conviction of sin?"

In response to your question, "Does this include those times when you sin?" My response was that this is a trick question as pertains to God being acknowledged in all my ways. I am not implying that you intentionally meant it as such. For when I sin, it is not God causing me to sin. He convicts me of sin after the action that was sin and with this knowledge comes correction for I then see my mistake that I did not see before. Therefore I said I don't sin willingly in response to the question.

We always do what we want. Including sin. You are basically claiming that all your sins are accidents, or that you really didn't mean to do it. Yeah, right. Every sin is a choice.

I did not say the direction of sin does not exist as a choice/option. Nor did I say I didn't choose/decide to sin. Nor did I say I didn't mean to do it at the time I did it. I said the choice was made out of ignorance, and had I known it would hurt someone, I would not have wanted to do it, since I do not want to hurt anyone. Yes we do what we want/will/desire, but we don't always see how what we want can hurt others. My desire/will is to do good to others. And as I know this is true for me, I would think it is true for all others. So it is that I take to heart this scripture. Matthew 7:1-3.

Of course I don't want to hurt others. But sin does hurt others. And the sin was freely chosen to do.

A contradiction of reasoning: I don't want to hurt others... Sin hurts others... I sin willingly.
You want me to admit that I sin willingly which ends in a contradiction which would make me a liar. So with complete honesty and a pure conscience I can say with all conviction that I don't want to hurt anyone and therefore, in that sense, I do not sin willingly. In another sense , I can say that sometimes I willingly do something that ends up hurting someone which I did not intend to do and it was sin. This is the problem caused by words and their different connotations.

A "real false"??? Really? That is contradicting. Something that is false isn't real.

It's not contradicting. It's confusion due to two different meanings being applied to the same word in the same sentence. That is why I supplied the qualifiers. False equated to "falsehood" and real equated to "existence" in reality. Falsehood exists and it is a will that is Satanic. Or in other words Satan has no Truth in him.

No, wrong suggestion. It was the unbelieving Jews who responded to what Jesus told the new believers, in v.33. They thought they were free, yet they, as unbelievers, were slaves to their sin.

My point is to show that scripture says that the only free will is
not in following sin but is set free by the Truth.

I agree. John 14:8,9 speaks to the ministry of the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit does not cause belief, as some think.

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit that testifies to God, both in the Father and the son. I'm trying to understand why you would say that the Holy Spirit does not inspire belief. Please note that two connotations of the term "belief" come to mind, and I am left to guess which one you are referring to. 1) Belief= belief something exists. 2) Belief= trust in ones character. The first is commonly used in atheistic thought. So that in their view, having faith means the ability to persuade yourself that something exists, in opposition to the thought that it does not exist. The second connotation of "belief" is about trusting in the good intentions of whomever you are believing in. The Holy Spirit is ever present in anyone who knows God in Truth which is why He is the Spirit of Truth. I don't see how one can have trust/belief without the Holy Spirit.

I'm interrupting your sentence right here because you've misquoted 1 Cor 1:21. Neither this verse, nor any other, says that God chooses who will believe, but that is what your sentence is saying. That is wrong.

I was not quoting 1 Corinthians 1:21. I was pointing out that in the context of what Paul is saying, the phrase "Pleased God", pertains to the foolishness of preaching and not to saving those who believed. And why? Because God wants to destroy all vanity in heaven and earth. That means that no man can be able to boast in his own self that he believed of his own accord. That's why it pleases God to choose the lowly, who are without wisdom and prudence, to put to naught the wise and prudent of the world. And He chooses to reveal Himself to the unlearned over the learned and scholarly. God chooses to whom He will reveal Himself, men do not choose God. I gave you much scripture that say this. Here is one more that the Holy Spirit brings to my recollection. Matthew 11:25.

They all go together. They aren't separate. When a believer is "filled with the Spirit" per Eph 5:18, and "walking by means of the Spirit" per Gal 5:16, all parts of the fruit will be in evidence.

It's not about which fruit, but THE fruit.

At any rate, I have pointed out that according to scripture that self control is a fruit of the Holy Spirit, giving glory to God for self control.

 

[FreeGrace]

I was not quoting 1 Corinthians 1:21. I was pointing out that in the context of what Paul is saying, the phrase "Pleased God", pertains to the foolishness of preaching and not to saving those who believed. And why? Because God wants to destroy all vanity in heaven and earth.

Your point is in error. Here is the verse (NASB)
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

The phrase "through the foolishness of the message preached" is a parenthetical phrase, which means it isn't necessary for the complete thought of the sentence. I've bolded and underlined the words before and after the parenthetical phrase. "God was well-pleased to save those who believe". That's exactly what Paul said.

Are you suggesting that God isn't pleased to save those who believe?

That means that no man can be able to boast in his own self that he believed of his own accord.

This is a red herring. No one ever boasts because they believed of "his own accord". No more than anyone who was rescued by a lifeguard could or would ever say that they saved themself by hanging onto the lifeguard. That would be simply absurd.

 

[childeye]

Your point is in error. Here is the verse (NASB)
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

The phrase "through the foolishness of the message preached" is a parenthetical phrase, which means it isn't necessary for the complete thought of the sentence. I've bolded and underlined the words before and after the parenthetical phrase. "God was well-pleased to save those who believe". That's exactly what Paul said.

I am not in error. It is not a phrase unnecessary to complete the thought. Otherwise it would have not been said.

Look at the context. In context, both before and after, all of this is about the preaching of the Gospel and why God chose preaching as the means to believe unto righteousness. Paul has not switched thought in the middle of a single sentence to try to let us know how God was pleased to save us. No glory for us.

Therefore to throw out the "through the foolishness of preaching" part, is removing the phrase that actually matters to make Paul's point and finish his line of thought. The phrase "to save those that believed", could have just as well said "those He saved". No, it pleased God to use the foolishness of preaching so as to put to naught the high things of the world, and make the prudence and wisdom of the world, into foolishness. Here's the context. Look at how many times foolish is used before and after.

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
Look at the last line above. It pleases God to show His foolishness is wiser than men. This is in fulfillment of scripture that foretold this, For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

For the knowing of God is not obtained through any means of men, but through the revelation at the cross. Some men see foolishness at the cross and others see the Divine Love that can only be of God and is not of this world so that no man can boast. 17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. . You see here. The cross is the power of the Gospel. The Gospel is the means of hearing about the cross. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. This is in fulfillment of scripture, Matthew 13:14.

Are you suggesting that God isn't pleased to save those who believe?

I'm suggesting that He is pleased to save us who believe through the foolishness of the Gospel. For the believer will not be ashamed.

This is a red herring. No one ever boasts because they believed of "his own accord". No more than anyone who was rescued by a lifeguard could or would ever say that they saved themself by hanging onto the lifeguard. That would be simply absurd.

This is not a red herring. As for the rest of what you said I agree completely. It would be foolishness and an absurdity to claim someone believed because they chose to grab the lifeguard. But at least they're not ashamed that they didn't.

 

[FreeGrace]

I am not in error. It is not a phrase unnecessary to complete the thought. Otherwise it would have not been said.

I bolded the basic phrase: God is well pleased…to save those who believe.

The verse does NOT say that God was pleased with the method only, as you claim. God is pleased to save believers.

Paul has not switched thought in the middle of a single sentence to try to let us know how God was pleased to save us. No glory for us.

How does God's pleasure at saving believers give "glory for us"???

So, you think that His pleasure is only about the method of evangelism?

Therefore to throw out the "through the foolishness of preaching" part, is removing the phrase that actually matters to make Paul's point and finish his line of thought.

It doesn't actually matter. The sentence is perfectly clear. And God isn't pleased with foolishness. If that is what mattered to Paul, he could have left out "to save those who believe".

The phrase "to save those that believed", could have just as well said "those He saved".

Which are believers, btw.

No, it pleased God to use the foolishness of preaching so as to put to naught the high things of the world, and make the prudence and wisdom of the world, into foolishness. Here's the context. Look at how many times foolish is used before and after.

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
Look at the last line above. It pleases God to show His foolishness is wiser than men. This is in fulfillment of scripture that foretold this, For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

OK, so you don't believe that God is pleased to save believers.

I'm suggesting that He is pleased to save us who believe through the foolishness of the Gospel. For the believer will not be ashamed.

That's what I'm saying.

This is not a red herring. As for the rest of what you said I agree completely. It would be foolishness and an absurdity to claim someone believed because they chose to grab the lifeguard. But at least they're not ashamed that they didn't.

Wow. You really missed the point. I was using the example of hanging onto a lifeguard who was saving a drowning victim to illustrate the absurdity of anyone claiming that they were saved by their own ability to believe.

Here is what you had said:
"That means that no man can be able to boast in his own self that he believed of his own accord."

My point is that no man can boast about believing of his own accord anyway. You were making a point where there isn't any point to make.

iow, no one can boast about believing of their own accord any more than a drowning man can boast about hanging on to the lifeguard who's saving them.

 

[childeye]

I bolded the basic phrase: God is well pleased…to save those who believe.

The verse does NOT say that God was pleased with the method only, as you claim. God is pleased to save believers.

Okay, I can live with that compromise since you now use the word "only" above. Before you had implied that the foolishness part did not apply.

How does God's pleasure at saving believers give "glory for us"???

By forgetting that God is no respecter of persons.

So, you think that His pleasure is only about the method of evangelism?

In this scripture it is.

It doesn't actually matter. The sentence is perfectly clear. And God isn't pleased with foolishness. If that is what mattered to Paul, he could have left out "to save those who believe".

So now you are not compromising? Okay. But you're missing out on what's being said here by Paul. And this particular thought of scripture is quite illuminating. By the way, the foolishness Paul is referring to that God is pleased with, is God's own foolishness. "For the foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of men".

OK, so you don't believe that God is pleased to save believers.

That's not what the scripture is about, is all I am saying.

Wow. You really missed the point. I was using the example of hanging onto a lifeguard who was saving a drowning victim to illustrate the absurdity of anyone claiming that they were saved by their own ability to believe.

And it was a good illustration which I agreed with.

Here is what you had said:
"That means that no man can be able to boast in his own self that he believed of his own accord."

My point is that no man can boast about believing of his own accord anyway. You were making a point where there isn't any point to make.

iow, no one can boast about believing of their own accord any more than a drowning man can boast about hanging on to the lifeguard who's saving them.

The dictionary definition of free will and it's view of free choice is indeed claiming that mankind saves himself by grabbing on to the lifeguard since he freely could not have. Hence a man can boast according to such a rationale. 1 Corinthians shows how God erases that possibility by making the wise foolish, and the foolish wise.

 

[FreeGrace]

The dictionary definition of free will and it's view of free choice is indeed claiming that mankind saves himself by grabbing on to the lifeguard since he freely could not have.

The dictionary definition of "free will" doesn't even address salvation by faith in Christ. And no one who believes that man is free to believe or reject God's gospel promise would EVER make the claim that you are trying to pin on them.

No more than anyone would brag about saving themself by hanging onto the lifeguard who is actually the one doing all the saving.

Hence a man can boast according to such a rationale.

But, just as there is NO such rationale for a drowning person being saved by a lifeguard, there is no such rationale for one who believes in Christ.

In fact, I will go so far as to claim that the very nature of faith in Christ removes ALL emphasis on the believer, and places ALL faith and trust on the Savior.

The rationale you have made up just doesn't exist. But Calvinists frequently try to beat that dead horse whenever the subject of free choice comes up.

Their skewed view that God chooses who will believe (through their skewed understanding of election) eliminates that phony rationale from their mind. But it never existed in reality in the first place. So it's just another straw man to beat up by Calvinists.

 

[childeye]

The dictionary definition of "free will" doesn't even address salvation by faith in Christ.

Of course. A dictionary is about meanings of words, not theological thought.

No more than anyone would brag about saving themself by hanging onto the lifeguard who is actually the one doing all the saving.

No one in their right mind would choose death, but it is a choice. But if they viewed it as their free will to drown or not drown according to their free choice, then they would not have a problem of at least saying they chose to grab the lifeguard and saved themselves in that sense. Had the lifeguard not been there however, such a choice would not even exist despite their claim to having a free will. Moreover if Satan comes and steals the seed of the Word planted, as indicated in the parable of the sower, where is their free will then? Couldn't they have just said no to Satan?

But, just as there is NO such rationale for a drowning person being saved by a lifeguard, there is no such rationale for one who believes in Christ.

Sin is not rational which I have said before. Of course there is no rationale like that for believers. For they know it was not of their supposed free will that caused them to believe.

In fact, I will go so far as to claim that the very nature of faith in Christ removes ALL emphasis on the believer, and places ALL faith and trust on the Savior.

Exactly.

The rationale you have made up just doesn't exist. But Calvinists frequently try to beat that dead horse whenever the subject of free choice comes up.

I didn't make it up. I only said, that through preaching, God would make the foolish wise and the wise foolish so no man could glory. That's what scripture says.

Their skewed view that God chooses who will believe (through their skewed understanding of election) eliminates that phony rationale from their mind. But it never existed in reality in the first place. So it's just another straw man to beat up by Calvinists.

I'm not a Calvinist, but I do believe that a man has to have some measure of faith in God within their heart to believe in Jesus. Matthew 13:12

 

[FreeGrace]

No one in their right mind would choose death, but it is a choice.

Smokers do. Many people do, though it isn't necessarily a direct choice.

But if they viewed it as their free will to drown or not drown according to their free choice, then they would not have a problem of at least saying they chose to grab the lifeguard and saved themselves in that sense.

There is no sense in which a drowning victim can claim that they "saved themself" by grabbing onto the lifeguard who purposefully dove into the water, swam out to them, in fact, grabbed them.

Had the lifeguard not been there however, such a choice would not even exist despite their claim to having a free will.

Because free will doesn't do anything. If there is no savior, there is no saving. It's that simply.

Moreover if Satan comes and steals the seed of the Word planted, as indicated in the parable of the sower, where is their free will then? Couldn't they have just said no to Satan?

Exactly. And they didn't. Are you forced into being deceived? No. But are people deceived? Do they they think they are being deceived? No, they don't. But they are freely buying into whatever the deceiver is selling.

Sin is not rational which I have said before. Of course there is no rationale like that for believers. For they know it was not of their supposed free will that caused them to believe.[/QUOTE]
As I said, free will doesn't do anything. It does not cause anything, whether belief or anything else. It's simply having choices and the freedom to choose from among them.

 

[chessman]

There is no sense in which a drowning victim can claim that they "saved themself" by grabbing onto the lifeguard who purposefully dove into the water, swam out to them, in fact, grabbed them.

Did the swimmer yell for help?

 

[FreeGrace]

Did the swimmer yell for help?

No, his mouth was full of water.

Seriously, this doesn't matter. Lifeguards don't wait for the call for help. But this goes beyond the illustration.

In eternal salvation, the action of believing in Christ is tantamount to calling (yelling) for help.

Also, the desire for being saved or helped in no way allows the one saved to claim that they saved themself because they wanted to be saved.