Man must exercise his free will?

[Josheb]

Synergism is the love of God through a "new man" that empowers us to love our enemy as our self. It is the "Second Commandment" being the living embodiment of the "First Commandment" ... see 1 John 4:20 and James 2:26 ... the second PROVES (reveals as genuine, perfects) the first.

Sophistry.

Synergism is the belief the sinner contributes something to his own salvation. Dressing that up with "the love of God," is disingenuous sophistry.

Is a Reprobate Christian a possibility? Can such a thing exist?

That depends on what you mean by "reprobate."

The KJV uses the word "reprobate" in Titus 1:16. The Greek, "adikomos" means failing to pass the test and is various translated as "unfit," failed," "rejected," and "reprobate" (although the last is a term only the odler translations and those with an allegiance to the KJV use). Doctrinally, the word is made to mean many things. If Titus 1:16 is the measure, then, no, there is no such thing as a reprobate Christian.

But.....

You've just moved the goalposts and you're dodging the matter of the sinner's agency and I am not putting up with the subterfuge.

Can a person be both "saved" and completely unchanged and worldly?

And you've just moved the goalposts again. "Reprobate" does not mean "completely unchanged."

If the answer is "no" [as I believe it is] then the 100% monergistic transformation required of the Greatest Commandment ....

Is a red herring.

You've committed a fallacy of false equivalence. Salvation is about how the unsaved become saved, NOT whether or not the already-saved are changed. Now you are either confused or you're deliberately trying to change the subject. If you're confused it might be because of an unintended error but it might be intended. This op is about the premise, "Man must exercise his free will [in order to become saved from sin and wrath], and the op asserts the premise it wants to discuss.....

According to Arminians (Synergists), a man must exercise his will to believe. If that be the case, why did Paul preclude man’s will?

So then, it does not depend on the person who wants it nor the one who runs, but on God who has mercy. Romans 9:16.

What's NOT stated in the op is the fact this "man" that must exercise his will to believe is a sinner. He's not a regenerate believer being asked to exercise his changed condition. He's not a reprobate. The reason he is not a reprobate is because he hasn't yet taken the "test." He hasn't shown up for the test. This dead guy, this sinner who is dead in sin and enslaved by sin is a corpse. That man who is supposed to exercise his supposedly free will is a sinfully dead and enslaved sinner who -according to Arminianism - supposed to exercise his sinfully dead and enslaved will in the sinfully dead and enslaved way sinfully dead and enslaved sinner do, and thereby contribute to their own salvation from the sinfully dead and enslaving condition in which the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner finds himself.

Synergism is not "man to man." Synergism is sinful man helping out God to save himself from the sin that kills him from coming to God for salvation from sin. It would be great if that sinfully dead and enslaved sinner could and would love God with all his heart, mind, soul, and strength and love his neighbor as himself, but that sinner's self-love is NOT the kind of love the second greatest commandment is talking about. That sinner's self-love is the self-love of 2 Timothy 3:2. That is the only kind of love the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner possesses.

The saved person is the one who loves God and others because he was loved first by God. Long before Jesus ever came to earth the psalmist reported God looking down on the earth and finding there was no one who sought God (Ps. 53). No one. Paul repeats this in Romans 3. How then is the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner going to love God and his neighbor if he is not seeking God?

Synergism is the premise a sinner can and must exercise his free will to believe but God is not interested in anything the sinner has. Not even the sinner's will. God changes the sinner, and He does it without the sinner's sinful help. Not only does the flesh profit nothing, but because the mind of flesh is hostile to God and it does not and cannot please God, even what would otherwise be a righteous act becomes filthy rags (Isa. 64:6).



If the sinful sinner must exercise his will, then why does Paul bother to say God's mercy does not depend on how a person wills or works?


The attempt to leverage Matthew 22:39 was interesting and admirably creative but once the context of the larger narrative is consider the way the verse was used here proves misguided. Love is a great thing - the mission of every saved person - but in Matthew 22 Jesus was using the Law to point out the Jewish leaders' lack. If the rabbinical technique is being used then it is being used in antithesis to teach judgment, not salvation. Furthermore, there is monergism without synergism and synergism is not "from man to man." It's not. That statement is just wrong; wrong on its face. From man to man is secular humanism, not synergistic soteriology.

 

[Josheb]

[shrug] I tried to explain.

Yes, and I give you credit for the attempt and tried to affirm the portion(s) that is correct. The problem is not the trying; it's the execution. Factual errors and logical fallacies never make for a sound explanation. A synergistic attempt to use Matthe 22:39 is misguided. That effort would have been better served by using Leviticus 19, Not Matthew 22. Simple mistake, maybe. One easily corrected, so the next time try using Leviticus. Monergism by definition does NOT require synergism. Monergism is not from God to man; monergism is salvation from God alone to man. Synergism is not from man to man; it's from God and man together to man. Synergism gets its name from the synergy or the combination of God's agency and man's agency. All those errors must be corrected for the explanation to have merit. Then there's the attempt to use a doctrinal term like "reprobate." We can agree there is no such thing as a reprobate Christian but that has nothing to do with how a sinner becomes a Christian.

Does a reprobate have a free will? NO! Can the reprobate exercise the will that is not free? Not in a salvific manner. Can the reprobate exercise his not-free free will in a manner God can use, wants to use, and does use when saving the sinner from the sin causing the reprobate to delusionally think God needs or wants the sinner's help? No!

In fact, the sinner's will is irrelevant.

Time to move on.

Bye

 

[Carbon]

That often happens in false conversions too, where an altar call has been given and a prayer said, with an invitation for Christ to come into their lives; then are told that because they said the prayer, they are now saved. In that case, we can refer to the parable of the sower. However, you clearly say the ones you speak of are regenerated----so I will address that.

I think it is because we were forgiven and clean by the blood Christ that we want to do our part, to be obedient to God. And it is in our lack of knowledge in this newborn state that we think it is all up to us to change ourselves. So we set about doing it, or attempting to. I think the majority of us probably start out a bit legalistic without realizing it. Some stay that way unfortunately. But yes, we feel that way because we have been cleansed, and can see the dirt. And yes, it is sanctification in its earliest stages, no matter how we may be looking at it.

Some very good points.

I agree----no matter how we may be looking at it.

The work is not a joint work.

Amen.

That is all the work of God.

Amen. It is God, and God alone who progressively removes the evil that dwells in our hearts, and undermines it's power. It is God andd God alone who encourages a believer's spiritual life and strengthens it, "so that it progressively controls his thoughts, feelings, words, and acts."

And it's God and God alone who causes a believer to walk the road of obedience and to engage in good works.

We would never do it ourselves and we could never do it ourselves. Jesus died to save us from that impossible dilemma. All we are doing---and there is doing in us---is being obedient to our Father. Just as He created our first parents to be. That is what God is restoring in redemption. That relationship with Him we were created for, with Him dwelling among us.

Amen

 

[fastfredy0]

I have given up arguing for Lent and rolled it into a New Years Resolution.
Now I just state my point and go back to creating digital artwork.

Maybe a wise thing to do. I like to read your view point. Haven't seen you post for a while. Missed you.

... as I continued reading the posts on this thread I've come to the conclusion that you have NOT given up arguing for Lent ... LOL

 

[Carbon]

Some very good points.



Amen.

Amen. It is God, and God alone who progressively removes the evil that dwells in our hearts, and undermines it's power. It is God andd God alone who encourages a believer's spiritual life and strengthens it, "so that it progressively controls his thoughts, feelings, words, and acts."

And it's God and God alone who causes a believer to walk the road of obedience and to engage in good works.



Amen

We should also always remember, that an advancing believer is one growing in a resemblance and conformity to the image of Christ. And by Whose doing is that?

 

[Arial]

We should also always remember, that an advancing believer is one growing in a resemblance and conformity to the image of Christ. And by Whose doing is that?

Yes. We have to remember our own beginnings, our own stumblings, the things we used to believe were true doctrinally, but no longer do, and let God do the growing in others, with the same patience and kindness that He showed us. That isn't always easy and I don't always do it. Therein lies an area in need of sanctification. When I have slipped up in that way, I do recognize it, and I hate it. I will wait upon the Lord and some day ---

 

[atpollard]

Maybe a wise thing to do. I like to read your view point. Haven't seen you post for a while. Missed you.

... as I continued reading the posts on this thread I've come to the conclusion that you have NOT given up arguing for Lent ... LOL

I missed the conversations.
Topics like this … not so much.
Let’s see how long the next “while” is.

 

[Musicmaster]

According to Arminians (Synergists), a man must exercise his will to believe. If that be the case, why did Paul preclude man’s will?

So then, it does not depend on the person who wants it nor the one who runs, but on God who has mercy. Romans 9:16.

These debates most generally always start with labeling people and beliefs with labels that cast a somewhat negative light upon the "other camp," or the "other bandwagon." It's like saying, "OUR bandwagon is more correct than YOUR bandwagon!"

As pathetic as this all is, as a biblicist, I don't give a rat's petoot what bandwagon someone rides in relation to the multitudes of man-made institutional church organizations/denominational dogmas with which they have aligned themselves. Without love, it's all in vain, because TRUE love seeks out God's Truth, not try and defend the peripheral pet doctrines around which we circle our wagons.

What matters to me personally is what does the very word of God say? THAT is the relevant question. It matters not which of the post apostolic, Nicene , Ante Nicene, et al, writers to whom one aligns their allegiance. Doesn't matter. Those writers were not inspired writers, and false teaching goes all the way back to the apostle's very lives when John found himself faced in dealing with people like Diotrephes. Nothing new under the sun...

So, folks can stick to their petty guns of doctrinal distinctives of who they follow and who wrote what in closer proximity to the lives of the apostles and Christ Himself, but it's all moot and meaningless in the scope to those of us who rely more heavily on the authority behind the inspired writings of those whom the Father drew to the Son, and through whom His inspired word was/is given to us.

1 John 2:26-27
26 These [things] have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
27 But the anointing which ye have received of im abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Then we have all the "Yeah, buts..." out there who always have eisegetical caveats to try and throw into the mix of the absolutes of what scripture says, such as here in 1 John...after all, we MUST create at least SOME wiggle room for us to corrupt the text in order to win at all costs, even when its a precious cost to one's own integrity. All manner of logical fallacies are then perpetrated, such as appeals to antiquity and appeal to man-made authority, et al.

It's an endless spiral of circular reasonings and stoic stubbornness against ever being moved away from what one has settled upon. After all, admitting one is wrong involves humility, and we can't have that, can we?

So, with no winner nor loser, these debates never end up going anywhere other than both parties going back to their respective doctrinal corners, patting themselves on their own backs and each other's backs, swigging down the many, many cans of beer labeled PRIDE, and believing they have won the day...and that the Lord is so very pleased with each one...

Again, pathetic indeed....

MM

 

[Josheb]

These debates most generally always start with labeling people and beliefs with labels that cast a somewhat negative light.........................



Again, pathetic indeed....

MM

Labels like "pathetic," are the basis of appeals to ridicule, and appeals to ridicule are fallacious.... and hypocritically pathetic.

I'd like to greet you in fellowship to the forum but if Post 48 is typical then what is sown will be reaped and either you'll not last long here or the conversations in which you engage will be predominantly with those who likewise hypocritically use labels, post opinion not scripture, and venture off-topic. Re-read Post 48 and identify the specific sentences that 1) say anything op-relevant about the subject specified in this op (man must exercise his free will) and 2) furthered the existing discussion op-relevantly. If Post 48 is truly believed then the next post will be op-relevant and lest concerned with "camps," and contain more Bible and less opinion.

Just saying


For better or worse, this forum is heavy with Reformed minded members so either prepare yourself for the inherent bias and adjust expectations accordingly or save yourself some time and effort. I am not well received in Dispensational Zionist boards, so I adjust my expectations accordingly and don't frequent them much. I'm an annihilationist so I'm not allowed in boards like Puritan, even thought - theologically speaking - I agree with everything else in their articles of faith.

If you have something specific to post about the supposed "must" of a sinner exercising his free will then do please post it.

 

[Musicmaster]

Labels like "pathetic," are the basis of appeals to ridicule, and appeals to ridicule are fallacious.... and hypocritically pathetic.

I'd like to greet you in fellowship to the forum but if Post 48 is typical then what is sown will be reaped and either you'll not last long here or the conversations in which you engage will be predominantly with those who likewise hypocritically use labels, post opinion not scripture, and venture off-topic. Re-read Post 48 and identify the specific sentences that 1) say anything op-relevant about the subject specified in this op (man must exercise his free will) and 2) furthered the existing discussion op-relevantly. If Post 48 is truly believed then the next post will be op-relevant and lest concerned with "camps," and contain more Bible and less opinion.

Just saying


For better or worse, this forum is heavy with Reformed minded members so either prepare yourself for the inherent bias and adjust expectations accordingly or save yourself some time and effort. I am not well received in Dispensational Zionist boards, so I adjust my expectations accordingly and don't frequent them much. I'm an annihilationist so I'm not allowed in boards like Puritan, even thought - theologically speaking - I agree with everything else in their articles of faith.

If you have something specific to post about the supposed "must" of a sinner exercising his free will then do please post it.

My post had do to with those who sling around labels like "Armenian," or "Calvinist," et al., like battering rams. There really is no reason for that because I have yet to knowingly encounter anyone who subscribes to ALL the tenets of any one of the labels they may sling at others, with the vast majority falling somewhere, perhaps, in proximity to one of those hardline labels, but never dead-on, agreeing with every point, and therefore defining themselves as a hardline such-and-such.

So, yes, calling the hardline practice of labeling others for what it is, which is pathetic, in labeling others in the sense that they are hardline this-or-that, it's all elementary, and therefore not at all hypocritical to call it pathetic.

If the Bible isn't, in some people's estimation, something that speaks for itself, and instead one appeals to what is not inspired as if that is an authority over what's inspired, which many people do, then it's pathetic. If those people don't want to engage with me, then that's great. I would never assume that many or most here who subscribe to the reformed views are so hardline that they won't even discuss things in a civil and non-labeling manner of attack. I have more faith in people's basic desire for discussion rather than attack than what you appear to harbor.

Any guilty conscience one may experience from what I wrote may be an indication to them that they may need to rethink their position for labeling others, and just have reasonable and civil conversation. I wrote what I did because having run Christian Forum boards myself, and seeing where these kinds of things can lead in many cases, it can get ugly and irrational, and there really is no reason for that. So, if what I wrote fits some here, then they're on notice that I'm just not going to play by their rules and converse irrationally with them.

But, thanks for the heads-up on your views.

MM

 

[Bob Carabbio]

According to Arminians (Synergists), a man must exercise his will to believe. If that be the case, why did Paul preclude man’s will?

So then, it does not depend on the person who wants it nor the one who runs, but on God who has mercy. Romans 9:16.

The simple FACT is that The Holy Spirit CONVICTS OF SIN, and of Judgement coming.

MAN by his WILL has got to repent, and call on God for salvation in FAITH (FAITH / the hearing of FAITH being the result of conviction of SIN - God's WORD to you Rom 10:17). Repenting is our free-will decision, based on the conviction of SIN by the Holy Spirit.

We CAN DO NOTHING, and remain lost spiritually. That's up to us. The Conviction will pass, and we can continue unchanged.

Ideally, however, we'll Surrender, and repent, whereupon the Holy Spirit will indwell, and we'll be Born Again.

 

[Musicmaster]

Labels like "pathetic," are the basis of appeals to ridicule, and appeals to ridicule are fallacious.... and hypocritically pathetic.

I'd like to greet you in fellowship to the forum but if Post 48 is typical then what is sown will be reaped and either you'll not last long here or the conversations in which you engage will be predominantly with those who likewise hypocritically use labels, post opinion not scripture, and venture off-topic. Re-read Post 48 and identify the specific sentences that 1) say anything op-relevant about the subject specified in this op (man must exercise his free will) and 2) furthered the existing discussion op-relevantly. If Post 48 is truly believed then the next post will be op-relevant and lest concerned with "camps," and contain more Bible and less opinion.

Just saying


For better or worse, this forum is heavy with Reformed minded members so either prepare yourself for the inherent bias and adjust expectations accordingly or save yourself some time and effort. I am not well received in Dispensational Zionist boards, so I adjust my expectations accordingly and don't frequent them much. I'm an annihilationist so I'm not allowed in boards like Puritan, even thought - theologically speaking - I agree with everything else in their articles of faith.

If you have something specific to post about the supposed "must" of a sinner exercising his free will then do please post it.

I do wonder, however, that if one declares he or she is "Christ Centered," and yet that "centeredness" is filtered through Clement, or Irenaeus, and/or any of the other of the non-authoritative, non-inspired, post-apostolic writers, doesn't that "color" that "Christ Centeredness?" We can even lump Augustine into the camp of the "questionable" in his own right.

It is interesting discussing the scriptures for what they say rather than to apply ethereal, allegorical hermeneutics whereby one can make the scriptures say just about whatever they want when finding something written by someone who happens to be in closer proximity to the apostles in the timeline of human history.

Perhaps I fail to understand how proximity of fallible people, other than the manuscripts of biblical texts themselves in our possession, lends to any person a higher measure of credibility that they are considered more closely approximated to infallibility, and therefore a worthy filtering source for scripture.

MM

 

[Josheb]

My post had do to with.............

I do wonder, however, that if........................

You'll become familiar with everyone's "style" and methods as the interactions ensue. My regrets for not adding this at the end of Post 49 but know that if I point out the digressive or off-topic nature of a post (or three, or ten) and invite or request a return to the subject at hand then do not expect me to collaborate with the digression. I am not going to discuss anything in Posts 48, 50, and 52 here in this thread because it's all off topic. Many good points were made in those posts, but they have nothing to do with whether or not a man must exercise his free will. Many will read those posts as an attempt to hijack the thread for your agenda. I'm guessing that's not the intent. We'd be having a different exchange if I thought you were deliberately trolling. If hijacking happens a lot, then we'll all learn that's what you do and, as I said previously, only those posters who feed off that will join the subterfuge.




If you have something specific to post about the supposed "must" of a sinner exercising his free will then please post it. We'd love to read your views on the op.

 

[TMSO]

I'd say Justification depends on Man's Freed Will, but Election does not depend on Man's Contra Causal Libertarian Free Will...

Provisionists read the Verse and hear us say Salvation doesn't depend on the Will. But we really mean Election doesn't depend on the Will, and Election is not Salvation. Justification through Faith IS Salvation Proper; and depends on our Freed Will...

Justification is where God declares the sinner justified. So, do we, of our freed will, march up to God and make Him justify us? It is God who justifies, not us. If God never declares us justified, can our will, freed or not, do anything? It is against God that we have sinned, not against ourselves.

 

[ReverendRV]

Justification is where God declares the sinner justified. So, do we, of our freed will, march up to God and make Him justify us? It is God who justifies, not us. If God never declares us justified, can our will, freed or not, do anything? It is against God that we have sinned, not against ourselves.

We're Saved by Grace through Faith, not by Works; yet we are Born Again FOR Good Works. These Good Works are of the Freed Will, right?

Once the Will is Freed, we boldly approach the Throne of Grace; without ever twisting God's Arm...

Can you name a Good Work you've done since you were Born Again, that you Willingly chose to do?

In Calvinism, we're Born Again before we Willingly choose to do the Work of Believing unto Justification. The Work of God is this; to Believe on the One Sent. This Post-Regenerative Work depends on our Belief in the Truth, to Justify us in the Sight of God; otherwise a Person is Rocky, Weedy or Trodden Soil. Justification without Sola Fide, is Universalism...

RC Sproul believed in Synergy in Sanctification, without believing in Synergy in Election. We can believe in Synergy in Justification, without holding to Synergy in Election...

That's where I am at, in my Soteriology...

 

[Ladodgers6]

Hmm...

Justification does not depend upon man's will at all, nor is faith said to depend upon man's will. Justification is by God's grace, through faith, but there is no mention of either depending upon the will of man.

Well said! The word Alone excludes man's activity. Because "Alone", means that it is the sole act of God, not man's. It is something done (Extra Nos) outside of us, and without God's Grace & Mercy no sinner would be saved.

 

[ReverendRV]

These debates most generally always start with labeling people and beliefs with labels that cast a somewhat negative light upon the "other camp," or the "other bandwagon." It's like saying, "OUR bandwagon is more correct than YOUR bandwagon!"

This is one reason I like to speak 'Matter-of Fact'ly...

Say things we All should agree with; and let the Chips fall where they may. When we have a Contrary Position, even after agreeing on the Fundamentals; somethings up...

 

[Musicmaster]

What's telling are my acquaintances through the years who believe an extreme of Calvinism that not even Calvin himself believed, in that the Lord (allegedly) intentionally created MOST of mankind to populate Hell; by way of never granting unto them the ability to call upon His name for salvation, and thus intentionally forcing most to end up in Hell!

Were that true, then all who go to Hell cannot legitimately be judged for a choice they were never empowered to make. That corrupts the perfect justice of the Most High, who Himself stated that He draws ALL men to himself, not just the so-called "elect" that those people eisegetically force into the text what clearly is not there!

MM

 

[Josheb]

Justification is where God declares the sinner justified. So, do we, of our freed will, march up to God and make Him justify us? It is God who justifies, not us. If God never declares us justified, can our will, freed or not, do anything? It is against God that we have sinned, not against ourselves.

If I may...

Remember: the NT writers were all Jews and in Judaism everything is about the Law of Moses. Justification was used by both Paul and James in the legal sense, the ability to have a basis to stand before God, to bring one's case before a judge. Think, for example, of the current case in New York in which former POTUS Trump is accused of attempting to sway and election by illegal means. That charge is supposed to be substantiated, or justified, before the trial can even begin. There was hearing to decide that matter and the judge in the case decided there is justification for the case to proceed. Absent that justification there is not trial. There is no standing before the judge. The judge won't even bother to hear the complaint. The chief difference between American jurisprudence and Biblical jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence. In America (and many other countries), the accused is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In the Bible everyone is guilty and has already been judged and condemned...... and were it not for the grace of God intervening on that absolute and universal condition NO ONE would have any basis to stand before God and plead their case!

The New Testament speaks of justification in two main ways: that justification that comes first by Christ (his faith, his blood, his work, his faithfulness), and only after conversion that which comes by faith in Christ. It MUST be understood that what the synergist asserts is the unjustified dead and enslaved by sin sinner can - solely by the means of his flesh - justify himself with a fleshly belief in Jesus. The sinner can obtain a basis, a right, to stand before God and plead his/her case before God NOT covered in the blood of Christ.... but instead, still covered in sin.

It is an irrational argument.

Not one supported by whole scripture. No one can even see the courtroom unless they have been born anew from above.

Of course, as I've previously stated, it is my position the sinner's will is irrelevant and the synergist argument is a red herring. The will of the dead and enslaved cannot and does not please God. It is so affected by sin that it cannot do any salvific good and, therefore, all arguments asserting the unregenerate sinful sinner's will are thoroughly misguided. Therefore, "Must a person do what s/he cannot do?" is a foolish, nonsensical question. You must split an atom with this plastic child's hammer .

Luke 1:37


.

 

[David1701]

What's telling are my acquaintances through the years who believe an extreme of Calvinism that not even Calvin himself believed, in that the Lord (allegedly) intentionally created MOST of mankind to populate Hell; by way of never granting unto them the ability to call upon His name for salvation, and thus intentionally forcing most to end up in Hell!

Were that true, then all who go to Hell cannot legitimately be judged for a choice they were never empowered to make. That corrupts the perfect justice of the Most High, who Himself stated that He draws ALL men to himself, not just the so-called "elect" that those people eisegetically force into the text what clearly is not there!

MM

You'll find that being a troll will not lead to beneficial discussions (possibly no discussions at all).