Free Will

[Eleanor]

There is no one sacrifice, in the OT, that symbolises the whole of the cross; but, the Passover clearly points to some of the main aspects of it.

The OT sacrifices were types, patterns, not symbols.
ANd the sacrificial system points to all aspects of sacrifie and is the pattern.

The sin offering of Lev 4 is the pattern for the whole of the atonement on the cross.

 

[David1701]

The OT sacrifices were types, patterns, not symbols.
ANd the sacrificial system points to all aspects of sacrifie and is the pattern.

The sin offering of Lev 4 is the pattern for the whole of the atonement on the cross.

<sigh>
A type is a symbol. A symbol is something that points to something else. The animal sacrifices pointed to Christ and the Cross.

The sin offerings in Lev. 4 certainly do point to the Cross; but, they are bullocks, goats and female lambs, none of which is the best type of Christ (a male sheep). Abraham's sacrifice (Isaac having been spared) of a ram is a closer picture, as is the Passover.

 

[civic]

Okay so people who Christ shed His Blood for are reconciled, justified before God by His Blood prior to their believing and while enemies.

No one is prior to faith .

 

[David1701]

No one is prior to faith .

That's not entirely true: we were reconciled to God while we were still his enemies.

Rom. 5:10 (KJV) For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Justification is by faith, however.

 

[civic]

That's not entirely true: we were reconciled to God while we were still his enemies.

Rom. 5:10 (KJV) For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Justification is by faith, however.

He has the “ elect “ saved prior to faith . Several of us have had these discussions with the poster on other forums as an fyi.

 

[civic]

It is Eternal Justification.

Yes positionally

 

[David1701]

He has the “ elect “ saved prior to faith . Several of us have had these discussions with the poster on other forums as an fyi.

We're not saved until we've believed, there's no doubt about that.

 

[civic]

We're not saved until we've believed, there's no doubt about that.

Ditto

 

[David1701]

It is a spiritual mystery in a sense due to the fact all whom He died for were seated with Him in the heavenlies, Ephesians 2:5ff.

I think it's the distinction between salvation accomplished and applied.

 

[David1701]

Who applies it?

The Lord.

 

[Eleanor]

<sigh>
A type is a symbol. A symbol is something that points to something else. The animal sacrifices pointed to Christ and the Cross.

A type is a pattern. That is much different than a symbol.

The sin offerings in Lev. 4 certainly do point to the Cross; but, they are bullocks, goats and female lambs, none of which is the best type of Christ (a male sheep). Abraham's sacrifice (Isaac having been spared) of a ram is a closer picture, as is the Passover.

 

[David1701]

A type is a pattern. That is much different than a symbol.

Stubbornness is not a virtue...

antitype
noun

1. a person or thing represented or foreshadowed by a type or symbol; especially a figure in the Old Testament having a counterpart in the New Testament

All communication is done by use of symbols, whether visual or verbal. All types are communication from God to us, and are, therefore, symbols. Of course, they can be other things as well (events, people, rituals, etc.), but they are all symbols.

 

[Eleanor]

Stubbornness is not a virtue...
antitype
noun
1. a person or thing represented or foreshadowed by a type or symbol; especially a figure in the Old Testament having a counterpart in the New Testament
All communication is done by use of symbols, whether visual or verbal. All types are communication from God to us, and are, therefore, symbols. Of course, they can be other things as well (events, people, rituals, etc.), but they are all symbols.

Get the "foreshadowed," a pattern, not just a symbol.

The dove is the symbol of the Holy Spirit, it is not a pattern of the Holy Spirit.

The sacrifices were a pattern of Christ's atonement, not a symbol of it.

There are what Scripture shows to be the meanings.

 

[brightfame52]

No one is prior to faith .

Thats wrong. And it gives mans act of faith a higher efficacy than Christs Death.

 

[brightfame52]

That's not entirely true: we were reconciled to God while we were still his enemies.

Rom. 5:10 (KJV) For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Justification is by faith, however.

I believe the scripture teaches that the elect were Justified before God while being enemies as well

 

[civic]

Thats wrong. And it gives mans act of faith a higher efficacy than Christs Death.

That’s wrong it makes faith meaningless

 

[His clay]

My two cents…

In a theological discussion, it can be argued that the primary connotation of the term "free will" that matters is one that relates to God's involvement. Reframing the question as "Is human willing 'free' from God's determining or not?" directs the focus to the core theological issue at hand. By emphasizing God's role in human willing.

Proponents who claim that human willing is free from God's determining should be challenged to justify their position. Many attempts to support this claim rely on scriptural verses that imply human autonomy from other created beings, rather than God. However, a closer examination reveals that these verses do not address the specific question of human freedom from God's determination.

Others may argue that certain verses mentioning things that are “not from God” provide support for their claim. However, upon closer examination, it becomes evident that these verses are actually denying God as a created cause, highlighting His transcendence rather than asserting human autonomy. Therefore, such arguments fail to substantiate the claim that human willing is independent of God's determining.



I agree.

If human willing is not in accordance with the greatest desire at a given moment, it can be argued that such willing is less than free. The concept of freedom in human willing is closely tied to the alignment between one's choices and their strongest desires.

Freedom in the context of human willing is often understood as the ability to will in accordance with one's own desires and preferences. When there is alignment between an individual's willing and their strongest desire in a given moment, it can be said that they are exercising their freedom to the fullest extent.

The greatest desire at a particular moment is the driving force behind human willing. If one's willing’s do not align with their greatest desire, it suggests a conflict within their internal motivations. In such cases, external factors, internal conflicts, or other influences may be distorting the alignment between desire and willing.

Based on the above points, we can infer that the degree of freedom in human willing corresponds to the extent to which one's willing align with their greatest desire at any given moment. When the willing is in harmony with the greatest desire, it reflects a higher degree of freedom. Conversely, if the willing is contrary to the strongest desire, it suggests a limitation on the freedom of that willing.

So now the question becomes if you are not “willing” according to your greatest desire at the moment can it really be considered a “free” willing at all?

…

I haven't followed the whole discussion. I've only made it to this post. I think that CCShorts makes some very good points.

As I was reading, I thought of John 3 where it says that men love darkness rather than light. There is a sort of freedom (loving darkness rather than light) that is actually a bondage. It is free in the sense of one doing and acting in accord with his highest preference. However, because of an immoral object of love (darkness), the person suffers from the results of sin as well as not realizing the awesomeness of the light.

 

[Carbon]

I haven't followed the whole discussion. I've only made it to this post. I think that CCShorts makes some very good points.

As usual.

As I was reading, I thought of John 3 where it says that men love darkness rather than light. There is a sort of freedom (loving darkness rather than light) that is actually a bondage. It is free in the sense of one doing and acting in accord with his highest preference. However, because of an immoral object of love (darkness), the person suffers from the results of sin as well as not realizing the awesomeness of the light.

 

[His clay]

As usual.

I'll use the illustration of drugs then. The person under addiction often relegates family, money, relationships as lesser than their love for that drug. Hence, the family is used, money is squandered, and their relationships in general suffer. The all-consuming drug is on the throne, and all else is reduced to the means of acquisition.

This is much the same as when John Piper uses an illustration of people loving to eat from the barrels of trash lining the alleyways of the slums while shunning the most tender juicy steaks imaginable. His mission is to display the glory of God and His greatness so that people will be satisfied with the Almighty rather than the deceitful refuse of sin. Unfortunately for the pride of men, this means showing them that apart from God they are nothing, and they must find their sufficiency in Him. The heart of the issue is, what does man love? When that is answered, then we get a clearer picture of what motives drive them.

 

[TheWordIsOne]

“That the Will is always determined by the strongest motive,”
Edwards.


Does man have free will? I think the question is kind of vague, but I have heard it many times. I have been back and forth on it throughout the years. Presently, I believe man does have free will but, in accordance with his nature. I do not believe the natural man can choose Christ. Faith includes three elements, knowledge, assent, and trust. These three the natural man does not possess about Jesus. Man must be made alive to see the kingdom. Once this takes place through regeneration, and he can see the kingdom, Christ is irresistible.
Then, as Edwards said above, applies as far as spiritual things are concerned.

Before the new birth, man is at enmity with God, and will not choose Him. So it is impossible for the word itself to produce faith in the heart of the natural man. He is determined not to seek God.

Thoughts?

Greetings
if I may
free will
What is Galatians 5 13?

Galatians 5 13

You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.

or 1 Cor 10:13 (NKJV) common to man

choosing
You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you.
John 15:16 (NKJV)