##freewill
Leongsy
Sir, what is your view on free will?
Sing
Take
a look here:
https://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2019/01/luthers-confusion-on-mans-freewill.html
Leongsy
So you are saying that man has free will but
it's tainted with sin. Whereas Luther said men have no free will because we are all under God's control?
Sing
Man
has free will; he sins freely, by free choice, without any coercion or any
forces from without; the exercise of his free will is determined by his nature,
fallen and sinful.
For example, a fish has free will, it can
swim anywhere it freely chooses BUT its fishy nature will not enable it to
choose to swim outside of water.
Even so, the free will of a natural man is
subjected to his fallen sinful nature - in enmity against God.
So many are SO STUPID ( i.e. too lacking in
common sense). They vehemently deny man's free will because they rightly
believe that a natural man cannot freely choose God.
To say that a natural man DOES NOT choose God
- which is a truth is NOT the same as saying that man has no free will.
To say that a natural man has free will BUT
he is ALSO incapable of choosing God are not contradictory; both are
scriptural.
Man freely sins, man is freely in enmity
against God. It's his fallen nature; it's NOT God's control over them. If it is
God's control over them, then they have
excuse indeed. But man is justly WITHOUT EXCUSE.
IF man has no free will, he CANNOT be justly
charged as without excuse. Man's free will is essential to the moral government
of God over His creatures.
To say that you are not able to eat stones is
not the same as saying that you have no ability to eat. 😂
Time to tell people to stop regurgitating
nonsense without engaging their brains!
Leongsy
How is your view of free will different from
the Arminians' free will then?
Sing
Good
question.
The Arminians say natural man has freewill, THAT
IS, natural man can choose God to be saved.
The Calvinists say that man has no free will,
THAT IS, man is incapable of choosing God.
They are BOTH WRONG.
The Bible says man has free will, but his free
will is held in bondage to his fallen, sinful nature; therefore, he is wholly
incapable of choosing any spiritual good to be saved. He freely chooses to
remain in sin.
Arminians' freewill affirms natural man's
willingness and ability to choose to be saved.
The Bible's freewill affirms BOTH the natural
man's freewill AND his absolute
inability to choose to be saved.
John 3:3 KJT — Jesus answered and said unto
him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see
the kingdom of God.
John 3:5 KJT— Jesus answered, Verily,
verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
The declaration, "except a man be born
again, he cannot..." is absolute, without exceptions; it declares the
absolute necessity of the new birth; spiritual life through a divine act of
regeneration precedes any ability for spiritual activities.
Without real free will, God's moral government over the moral creature made in His image collapses.
Without real free will, man cannot be justly declared to be without excuse; with his free will, he acts freely without external coercion; thus, he is justly without excuse.
Comments
Tyler
Amen brother. I find it interesting that the
apostle Paul directly addresses the error of thinking that man's sin is somehow
needed to glorify and commend God's righteousness while in the same chapter
speaking of man's total depravity. Both errors of Absolutism and Arminianism
addressed in the same passage.
Romans 3:5-8 But if our unrighteousness
commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who
taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) [6] God forbid: for then how shall God
judge the world? [7] For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie
unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? [8] And not rather, (as
we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil,
that good may come? whose damnation is just.
