Theology Club: A Question for Open Theists

[Totton Linnet]

:AMR:

The sinner believes he is in control because of his sin. However, he is free to give up that belief.

People are not "already free"; all have sinned, save one.

Even slaves have wills. Men can always choose from among the options that are physically possible. Among those options are paths that are not sinful.

Doesn't it depend then upon the options and the One who gives the options? what if no option is given, for example to the Red Indian before the Europeans arrived.

But that still [imv] misses the mark.

The gospel is the power of God, the power to save, to deliver, to set free comes with the gospel to everyone who believes....but that power to believe also is by the power of God.

We agree man has a will but we disagree that it is free or even has the faintest glimmer of hope of being free. Until the Holy Ghost arrives on the scene with the gospel preacher.

 

[Stripe]

We disagree that it is free or even has the faintest glimmer of hope of being free.

If it's not free, it's not a will.

 

[Desert Reign]

We agree man has a will but we disagree that it is free or even has the faintest glimmer of hope of being free. Until the Holy Ghost arrives on the scene with the gospel preacher.

That's just silly, Totty. No one is saying that anyone can come to Christ by his own will if he has not yet heard of Christ. You hear of Christ, the Holy Spirit is there, you know what you have to do, you make a decision. I think you ventured out too far into the mud and every step you take sucks you deeper down.

 

[intojoy]

The problem with free will is that Christians who think that all men are able to make a choice against their sin nature is that now that these Christians do not understand that their newborn human spirit does not control their will now, post salvation.

After we are, born again we have a dual capacity. On one hand we can choose to allow our will to be controlled by our flesh and on the other hand we should strive to walk by our newborn human spirit. This is possible when we allow our new man to control our free will.

The non saved man cannot com to Christ unless he is drawn by the Father because he only exercises his will thru the flesh. He cannot choose God because in order for that to happen he must needs be born again. Grace and Truth


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Totton Linnet]

That's just silly, Totty. No one is saying that anyone can come to Christ by his own will if he has not yet heard of Christ. You hear of Christ, the Holy Spirit is there, you know what you have to do, you make a decision. I think you ventured out too far into the mud and every step you take sucks you deeper down.

You have no mind to the active working of the Holy Spirit in this matter of hearing, of believing of coming of deciding. All your mind is focused upon what appears in the natural....you THINK it is all you.

This idea of man having a free sovereign will is quite modern [by which I mean post reformation]

Only God has a free sovereign will, man does have options but it is God who gives the options. What is it? "obey and live or rebel and die" Well if a man obey and live THAT is God's will....if he rebels he dies and dead men do not have freewill.

But man has already chosen which option and he did not choose well....now he must die

Paul says we Gentiles were without God and without hope, THAT is man's condition....his only hope is that God will have mercy upon him...thanks be to God He has had mercy.

YOU say all a man has to do is hear and decide but Jesus didn't. He said to those who came up to fight against Him "you CANNOT understand....you are not My sheep, you are the devil's children" The bible says God closed their eyes and stopped up their ears.

People don't like it, I know they don't but they wail and weep as much as they like but God will not gather the tares with the wheat, He will not save the seed of the serpent.

I don't even say God changed my mind, that is to say my will [or yours] I say He overrules, He conquers and subdues our will and very glad I am too that He does.

"You have not chosen Christ but He chose you"...but you continue to say that YOU chose.

 

[Stripe]

The problem with free will is that Christians who think that all men are able to make a choice against their sin nature is that now that these Christians do not understand that their newborn human spirit does not control their will now, post salvation.

Is it?

What if we told you that it is no longer us who lives, but Christ who lives in us?

What would you say then?

And a redundant phrase is just as unhelpful as a doubly redundant expression. If a will is not "free," it is not a will. "Free will" is a senseless tautology. To bring clarity, just say "will," and if you mean something else, don't say "will."

After we are, born again we have a dual capacity. On one hand we can choose to allow our will to be controlled by our flesh and on the other hand we should strive to walk by our newborn human spirit. This is possible when we allow our new man to control our free will.

All men are always in charge of all the decisions they make.

The non saved man cannot com to Christ unless he is drawn by the Father because he only exercises his will thru the flesh.

John 12:32.

Fortunately, God draws all men. :up:

So the will is not part of what you say.

He cannot choose God.

Sure, he could.

 

[Desert Reign]

YOU say all a man has to do is hear and decide but Jesus didn't. He said to those who came up to fight against Him "you CANNOT understand....you are not My sheep, you are the devil's children" The bible says God closed their eyes and stopped up their ears.

Totty, like I said, as you try to get one leg out of the mud, the other one goes in deeper.
I believe that the Holy Spirit is necessary for conversion/salvation.
I believe that everyone must hear the Gospel before being saved.
I suspect that all the open theists on this board will say the same.
You've been away fighting battles that no one is interested in.
You have a lovely view of open theists that makes you feel glad you are not one of them and that makes you feel how simple it is to refute them. This makes you feel really confident. But it is all self-deception and wishful thinking.
If you need help getting out of the mud and back to the shore before the tide comes in and drowns you, please feel free to shout and I would be happy to help you.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Nah I've always been this way, it is the way of the gladsome heart

....presumably you had no answer to the scriptures, and yes bible faith is the simplistic way.

 

[fishrovmen]

I know this has been probably discussed before many times, I am not sure, but my question is this:
If the definition of "free" means not under the control or power of another, nor hindered nor restrained; and the definition of "will" is a wish, desire or intention, then are we talking only about someones intentions being free, or does the definition necessarily include the performance and outcome of that intention?

 

[Lighthouse]

I know this has been probably discussed before many times, I am not sure, but my question is this:
If the definition of "free" means not under the control or power of another, nor hindered nor restrained; and the definition of "will" is a wish, desire or intention, then are we talking only about someones intentions being free, or does the definition necessarily include the performance and outcome of that intention?

It means "freedom of ability to act." Of course it is limited to the abilities we have; I can't choose to fly like a bird, or dunk a basketball like Jordan.

 

[fishrovmen]

It means "freedom of ability to act." Of course it is limited to the abilities we have; I can't choose to fly like a bird, or dunk a basketball like Jordan.

I understand what you wrote, and agree. I was just wondering out loud if, when "free will" is discussed, in the minds of some people, are they including the performance and outcome of the said act?

 

[Lighthouse]

I understand what you wrote, and agree. I was just wondering out loud if, when "free will" is discussed, in the minds of some people, are they including the performance and outcome of the said act?

I certainly do.

 

[Derf]

I understand what you wrote, and agree. I was just wondering out loud if, when "free will" is discussed, in the minds of some people, are they including the performance and outcome of the said act?

I certainly do.

So, if Jesus never sinned, then we don't know if He actually had free will, since there was never a culmination of His will in an act of sinning.

If God never lies, does He have free will, since there has never been a performance of a lie attributable to Him? Is God lacking a free will? Or is He bound by a power greater than Himself?

 

[Lighthouse]

So, if Jesus never sinned, then we don't know if He actually had free will, since there was never a culmination of His will in an act of sinning.

If God never lies, does He have free will, since there has never been a performance of a lie attributable to Him? Is God lacking a free will? Or is He bound by a power greater than Himself?

God is able to not sin.

 

[Derf]

God is able to not sin.

Yes, I agree. But is He able to sin? If not, then by your definition, He doesn't have free will. Unless I misunderstood your definition (certainly a possibility).

Here was your definition:

It means "freedom of ability to act." Of course it is limited to the abilities we have; I can't choose to fly like a bird, or dunk a basketball like Jordan.

If God is able only to do righteously, but not to sin, then he falls into the latter category (limited to only those things that align with His nature). Some people say that we humans do not have free will because we cannot do righteously to the extent required by God. We then also (if the foregoing is true) fall into the latter category.

So then, why is it that some would consider us not to have free will when we cannot not sin, and that God does have free will when He cannot not do righteously. It seems a bit of a double standard.

Jesus may be in the first category--perhaps the only creature to ever be in that category, where nothing is impossible with Him. Some would disagree with me, but I believe He had the ability to sin--to disobey the will of His Father--but He never exercised that ability.

But if He never exercised that ability, then how do we know He had that ability (to sin)? We don't. So then, we also don't know whether He had/has free will (by your definition).

 

[Lighthouse]

Yes, I agree. But is He able to sin? If not, then by your definition, He doesn't have free will. Unless I misunderstood your definition (certainly a possibility).

You're asking if God is able to be unrighteous.

And it is your argument that if He is not then He does not have freedom of will?

Here was your definition:

If God is able only to do righteously, but not to sin, then he falls into the latter category (limited to only those things that align with His nature). Some people say that we humans do not have free will because we cannot do righteously to the extent required by God. We then also (if the foregoing is true) fall into the latter category.

So then, why is it that some would consider us not to have free will when we cannot not sin, and that God does have free will when He cannot not do righteously. It seems a bit of a double standard.

Jesus may be in the first category--perhaps the only creature to ever be in that category, where nothing is impossible with Him. Some would disagree with me, but I believe He had the ability to sin--to disobey the will of His Father--but He never exercised that ability.

But if He never exercised that ability, then how do we know He had that ability (to sin)? We don't. So then, we also don't know whether He had/has free will (by your definition).

I have never made the argument that we don't have freedom of will.

And I disagree that Jesus was able to be unrighteous.

 

[Derf]

You're asking if God is able to be unrighteous.

And it is your argument that if He is not then He does not have freedom of will?


I have never made the argument that we don't have freedom of will.

And I disagree that Jesus was able to be unrighteous.

Not really trying to argue, but think through it. My point was that if free will is dependent on ability to do otherwise, which some say and which I thought you were suggesting, then God doesn't have free will either. Most (or all) Christians believe God has free will, therefore we, too, have free will, even if we can't do otherwise.

I don't know for sure if Jesus was able to be unrighteous. But someone being tempted that can't succumb is hardly a consolation for those of us that can (Heb 4:15). "Yet without sin" is a far cry from "Yet He couldn't sin". I'm not sure why it's a big deal to some that Jesus not be able to sin vs just not giving in to sin.

 

[themuzicman]

I would say that God is able to do anything, but in His wisdom chooses to act according to His purposes, which are ultimately righteous.

 

[Derf]

I would say that God is able to do anything, but in His wisdom chooses to act according to His purposes, which are ultimately righteous.

That certainly makes sense. Can we turn that around and say the man is able to do anything (with some obvious physical and mental limitations, but not necessarily morally), but in his "depravity" chooses to act according to his purposes, which are ultimately selfish?

The scare quotes are to distinguish between God and man in his fallen state, but not defining it for the moment.

 

[themuzicman]

That certainly makes sense. Can we turn that around and say the man is able to do anything (with some obvious physical and mental limitations, but not necessarily morally), but in his "depravity" chooses to act according to his purposes, which are ultimately selfish?

The scare quotes are to distinguish between God and man in his fallen state, but not defining it for the moment.

Man's purposes are not always selfish. Even those without the law must do things of the law in order to be judged by the law (Romans 2:14-16). Yes, the human nature when it comes into contact with law tends to sin (Romans 7:5-9), but that isn't always his purpose.