Writing a book on free will salvation

[Josheb]

As I have stated before, regarding Paul's discourse on the person "sold under sin", how their heart works "before" receiving the Holy Spirit.

Rom 7:15-16 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good.

Rom 7:19-20 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

Paul states he has a will (a free will) to do what is good, but his flesh overrides his will. It is our very core that accepts Jesus, not our fleshly actions. Yes, we are sold under sin, but our will is not enslaved.

You might say, Paul was speaking of his current life. But that is unlikely, for he uses the term "sold under sin", and mentions a great struggle. Now it is true a person may struggle from time to time to overcome their desires.

Well, what he plainly, explicitly states is this:

Romans 7:14-25
For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So NOW, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.


The word "now" means now. It does not mean "in the past," or "before I came to Christ." Now means now. Paul begins with past-tense langauge and describes prior conditions but he quickly segues into present-tense, first-person language AND he does so repeatedly, over, and over, and over again and again. He is NOT talking ONLY about his pre-Christ life. He is very much writing about the struggle between the flesh and the Spirit that continues on in the life of the believer. If that were not the case, if that tension between the do did not persist then his words would be unnecessary.

Romans 8:5-8
For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind of flesh is death, but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind of flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

If a convert to Christ never again walked in the flesh it would be completely unnecessary for Paul to write those words. The Spirit inspired those words. The Spirit of God inspired Paul to write those words, using Paul's own experience as an example to those to whom he was writing because the condition was very real; his audience needed to read those words!

Free-willers like to treat Romans 7 selectively. The single out the parts that support their position and ignore the whole of what Paul wrote.

But a born-again believer is not controlled by sin.

I never said he was.

We're not talking about born-again believers. Salvation is about how a non-believer becomes a believer. You cannot take words written about born-again believers and attribute them to not-born-again non-believers. The not-born-again non-believer does not have the Spirit by which s/he might rule over sin. He is not in Christ, and therefore has none of the authority or power found only in Christ. He is not an adopted son, but an object of wrath. He cannot will himself into adoption and escape wrath apart from the Spirit.

As we see here:

1Jn 3:5-10 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.

Not-born-again non-believers do not abide in Christ. People who are not born again, people who do not believer do not abide in Christ.




Given the limiting conditions you agreed exist, is the will of the not-born-again non-believer who completely lacks the indwelling Spirit free?

Romans 7:21-8:2
I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.

The not-born-again non-believer does not have the law of the Spirit of life in Christ within him to set him free of the law of sin and death! The born-again believer has a mind of Spirit by which s/he can please God. Those with only the mind of flesh do not and cannot please God.

Your book had better CORRECTLY discriminate between the two because otherwise the book is worthless, you'll look foolish, and everyone will read about unscriptural falsehood.

James 3:1
Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.

It is incumbent upon you to get this correct.

If the human will cannot usurp the will of God without His consent, then it is not free. If a person cannot know all the influences that come to bear on any given moment of decision, then that person's will is inescapably controlled by his ignorance. He is not free to choose unfettered. Similarly, any person who does not and cannot possibly know all the consequences of his choices or fathom all the effects his choice will have on himself and all others his choice might effect, then that ignorance is a controlling influence. He might make a completely different choice had he more knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. Ignorance is enormously controlling. The biggest ignorance any not-born-again non-believers has is his ignorance of God. Sin compromises the human will. It does not matter whether the compromise is 10% or 100%; it's still a limiting control.

Romans 7:17-21
So NOW, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.

The word, "now" means now. It is the one who wants to do good, the born-again believer, not the not-born-again non-believer who wants to do good.

 

[Josheb]

Given the limiting conditions you agreed exist, is the will of the not-born-again non-believer who completely lacks the indwelling Spirit free?

Those born again can be volitionally free.
Those who believe in Jesus can be volitionally free.
Those possessing the Spirit can be volitionally free.

Can a sinful person who is not born again, the person not believing in Jesus, the person completely lacking the Spirit, the person still suffering the adverse effects of sin, the one who cannot possibly know all that has come to bear on his moment of choice, and is ignorant of all the consequences and effects his choice will have on himself and others......

.....is that person's will free?

It is capable of making choices, but is it free?

You stated the human will cannot do several things. Now be honest, forthcoming and courageous and answer the question asked. Is the person living under those conditions volitionally unfettered? Yes or no?

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Given the limiting conditions you agreed exist, is the will of the not-born-again non-believer who completely lacks the indwelling Spirit free?

Those born again can be volitionally free.
Those who believe in Jesus can be volitionally free.
Those possessing the Spirit can be volitionally free.

Can a sinful person who is not born again, the person not believing in Jesus, the person completely lacking the Spirit, the person still suffering the adverse effects of sin, the one who cannot possibly know all that has come to bear on his moment of choice, and is ignorant of all the consequences and effects his choice will have on himself and others......

.....is that person's will free?

It is capable of making choices, but is it free?

You stated the human will cannot do several things. Now be honest, forthcoming and courageous and answer the question asked. Is the person living under those conditions volitionally unfettered? Yes or no?

You really do not know if man's will is free or not, you have no scripture to support it one way or the other. Everyone agrees man is sinful, but let's move to another scripture.


Luke 13:34 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!

Answer these two questions yes or no:

Is God willing to save Jerusalem's children, does He have a willingness to save them?

Were Jersualem's children unwilling to be saved, who was unwilling?

God was unwilling? Yes/No

Man was unwilling? Yes/No

 

[BBAS 64]

Good day, FAH

Figured I would help you to round out some reformed view of Free-will, so that you could accurately include them in your Book.

"If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright."

-Martin Luther

"if the final decision for the salvation of fallen sinners were left in the hands of fallen sinners, we would despair all hope that anyone would be saved"

Man’s will is free to follow his inclinations, but fallen man’s inclinations are always and invariably away from God.

- R.C. Sproul

"Man is nothing: he hath a free will to go to hell, but none to go to heaven, till God worketh in him to will and to do his good pleasure"

George Whitefield


Free will carried many a soul to hell, but never a soul to heaven

- C.H. Spurgeon


Also:

The Meaning of Man’s Will

The term free will as applied to man is often glibly declared with little or no understanding of its meaning. There is actually no unified theory of man’s free

www.ligonier.org

In Him,

Bill

 

[Josheb]

You really do not know if man's will is free or not, you have no scripture to support it one way or the other.

That is incorrect.

First, speak for yourself and never presume to imagine you know what others know unless they have actually posted it. Second, when you, @FutureAndAHope, use the word "you" some indication of whether you are talking about me, specifically, or intend that to be read as a more generic you, is in "y'all," or "all Christians." This is important because I really do know if man's will is free, as in or not AND there exists scripture to support that position.

Here are two passages indicating humans have some volitional agency.

Exodus 17:8-9
Then Amalek came and fought against Israel at Rephidim. So Moses said to Joshua, "Choose men for us and go out, fight against Amalek. Tomorrow I will station myself on the top of the hill with the staff of God in my hand."

Acts 15:22-23
Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas—Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, and they sent this letter by them, "The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings.

Scripture also provides support for non-believers' ability to make decisions.

1 Corinthians 7:13
And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away.

People can make choices. No one I know, and no theology I have ever read denies the human ability to make choices. NONE. The question is NOT "Do humans, humans who are dead in sin, have any ability to make choices?" The question is NOT "Do sinners still possess any degree of volitional agency?" They do!

The problem is that we are not talking about whether not a person can choose his comrades for battle, pick individuals to act as stewards of limited resources, or decide whether or not to stay with his spouse. Scripture clearly supports the volitional agency of a sinner in all of those circumstances. When we talk about salvation, however, we are not talking about any of those kind of decisions. we're talking specifically about the sinner's ability to choose Jesus. We are talking about whether or not any volitional agency exists when it comes to the dead-in-sin sinner's ability to choose salvation from the sin that enslaves him. In an earlier post you said we are not slaves to sin. It is true Christians are not slaves to sin, but those who have not been freed from sin by Jesus are, in fact, enslaved by sin. Scripture makes this very clear.

John 8:34-36
Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. So, if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed."

Romans 6:16-18
Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin. All have sinned and fall short of God's glory(Rom. 3:23). The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23) and eternal life in Christ is a gift, not a choice. Jesus himself plainly, explicitly stated sinners are slaves. Jesus also plainly stated, just as explicitly, that it is the Son who makes a person free. In other words, sinners do not make themselves free. Jesus does that - he makes it that way. There are only two options: a person is either a slave of sin, or a slave of righteousness. There is no third option. There's no third option of autonomy. Independence from sin and/or God is not an alternative offered anywhere in scripture. if you can find a verse in the Bible explicitly stating there exists a third option other than either sin or God then I am all eyes and ears and awaiting you to post it.

Otherwise, concede the facts of scripture just posted.

Consider this: The word in the OT for "freewill" is a single word, "nedabah." It's the word used when the OT speaks of a "freewill offering." It means "voluntary." The reason this is important is because the word for free is "chophshi" and the word for will is "ratson." In other words, when the OT speaks of "nedebah," it is NOT speaking about ratson chophshi." Nedebah says nothing about a will being soteriologically free. It simply says the offering was voluntary.

So the question is, "Is a sinfully dead and enslaved sinner able to make a choice and choose Jesus while in that sinfully dead and enslaved state?" Sinners can volunteer offerings to God (but those offerings do not save the offerer from sin), and the sinner can decide to stay married or not, He can pick his favorite care or flavor of ice cream, but can he choose a savior?

The question of "free will" is very specific when it comes to salvation.







I have to go and this post is already lengthy. I will pick up this discussion later when I have sufficient time but I will leave with a few observations:

You avoided to the question asked AGAIN. You were asked to state the logically necessary conclusion of the limiting conditions you agreed exist. You were not asked to answer an unasked question. You weren't asked to change the subject. You weren't asked to digress, obfuscate, or anything else. One thing and only one thing was asked of you and you AGAIN have failed to answer the question asked.

If a person's will is limited by all the conditions cited, then it is not free. It is not unfettered. It is not autonomous. That does not mean all volitional agency is lacking. It simply means it is not free. The sinner's will has liberty, not freedom. And you better get that correct before you write a book telling others how and what to think.

I've emphasized the word "you" because I'd like you to use it judiciously. I assume you do not like me telling you what you believe. Don't do it to me. You seem sufficiently able to articulate your views without abusing the word. Fair enough? Try keeping the posts about the posts and not the posters because....

You really do not know if man's will is free or not, you have no scripture to support it one way or the other.

That is not correct. I do know if man's free will or not, and there is support in scripture. PLENTY of it. I also know the history of this debate beginning with the scriptures, the diversity of the ECFs, and the various concerns debated and decided over the course of the last 20 centuries. You went on record stating you've never studied that history, and yet you presume to write a book on "free will salvation" and you deny the scripture plainly stating man is enslaved by sin.

I want you to understand I could ignore you. I, a monergist, have taken the time and effort to walk with you through scripture. I know you hold an opposing view. If you are going to write a book on free will salvation then make it a good book - even if you hold a different view, and you're going to be critical of my position, I will try and help you understand what scripture explicitly states because what scripture states is not up for debate. People make scripture "say" a variety of things it never states. Scripture never states the will is free.

 

[Josheb]

Luke 13:34 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!

Answer these two questions yes or no:

Is God willing to save Jerusalem's children, does He have a willingness to save them?

Yes.

Were Jersualem's children unwilling to be saved, who was unwilling?

Bad question. The verse says nothing about salvation and the fact you think salvation is what is stated is one more example in a HGE list of examples where you mishandle scripture. What the unwillingness pertains to is the coming to Jesus though he seeks to gather them. The were unwilling to be gathered.

God was unwilling? Yes/No

Yes

Man was unwilling? Yes/No

No

The problem is that is not all that scripture states on the matter. For example, WHY were they unwilling? If the answer is "Sin caused them to be unwilling," then you've undermined and contradicted the very foundation of your book. Their will was so compromised by sin that they proved unwilling. Their will was broken, fatally damaged. They were unwilling to be gathered by the one Person who make them willing.

There are also other answers that coincide and correlate with sin as the reason for their unwillingness. God can also cause a person to be unwilling. I have posted several examples of this directly to you many times in past thread. Pharoah is an example of the latter. There are many such examples in scripture. Perhaps one of the most poignant is Isaiah 6:9.

Isaiah 6:8-10
Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!" He said, "Go, and tell this people: 'Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand.' Render the hearts of this people insensitive, their ears dull, and their eyes dim, otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and return and be healed."

Because of the effects of years of sinful disobedience (an unnecessary redundancy because disobedience is sin and sin causes disobedience), the Jewish audience to whom Isaiah was writing was hard-hearted, deafened and blinded - all by their own sinfulness. After many, many, many attempts to shake these people out of their chronic covenant-breaking God finally had enough (exactly as He'd had with many others earlier in the Bible). He told Isaiah to "Render their hearts insensitive!" They would listen but not perceive, look, but not understand. Their eyes would be dull and eyes dim.

Why?

WHY does God tell Isaiah to render these people this way? God's answer is, "otherwise they might see.... hear.... understand.... return..... and be healed. In other words, the reason God renders them deaf and dumb is so they will NOT return and be healed. God goes on record stating HE is the obstacle, He is actively preventing them from return, actively preventing their healing.

This proves to be a very, very, important text because every gospel writer records Jesus quoting Isaiah and explaining it to his disciples. That Old Testament edict would prove to be prophetic. After preaching the parable of the sower and the seed, the disciples ask Jesus why he teaches in parables. Jesus' answer is record in the gospels.

Matthew 13:10-17
Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: 'You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.' For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’ But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.


The disciples heard the exact same message the rest of the crowd had heard. It was to the disciples the keys of the kingdom had been given. They did not grasp it on their own; it was given to them. According to Jesus, the reason the rest of those in attendance - those to whom the keys had not been given - the reason they didn't understand, repent and be healed - is because the full force of prophecy had come to bear down on them in the gospel era (just as Isaiah had prophesied). The keys were not given to them because they had been MADE ever hearing but never understanding, ever seeing, but never perceiving. and the reason they been made that way (by God's hand) is because otherwise they would repent and be healed!!!!!

Ever single gospel and Acts records this use of the Isaiah prophecy.

So, there are times when sin prevents willingness. There are also times when God prevents willingness AND God can do it simply by further hardening the already hardened heart OR by bring to bear the full force of prophecy in His timing on anyone He so chooses. God chooses.

Do you remember the very first question I asked you in this thread?

Can a sinful sinner's will ever overcome God's will?

If God wills a person's heart hardened, then the sinner's sinful will cannot overcome God's will. Paul put it this way:

Romans 1:22-32
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

God's existence and power have been made known to everyone. There's no excuse for not knowing. Having denied God and the evidence He has provided for every single person who has ever existed, humans turn to other gods, including carved idols and self-worship. Instead of giving them salvation, God gave them over to their already-existing lusts. God gave them over to degrading passions. God gave them over to a depraved mind.

Do lustful people with degrading passions and depraved minds want to be gathered by Jesus? NO! They are unwilling.

Were Jersualem's children unwilling to be saved, who was unwilling?

Yes, they were unwilling and the reason they were unwilling is because they were saturated with and enslaved by sin, who God had given over to their lusts, degrading passions, depraved minds, who God had made deaf and dumb!

Why?

Otherwise, they would repent, turn to God, and be healed.

They would not be gathered!




There is more but, regretfully, I must go. I'll come back and a few other things scripture states. I remind you once more: I haven't posted doctrine. I posted scripture, scripture exactly as written, and asked you to look at what it explicitly states, not what theologians make it say. God Himself said HE hardens hearts and does so lest people repent and be healed.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Good day, FAH

Figured I would help you to round out some reformed view of Free-will, so that you could accurately include them in your Book.

"If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright."

-Martin Luther

"if the final decision for the salvation of fallen sinners were left in the hands of fallen sinners, we would despair all hope that anyone would be saved"

Man’s will is free to follow his inclinations, but fallen man’s inclinations are always and invariably away from God.

- R.C. Sproul

"Man is nothing: he hath a free will to go to hell, but none to go to heaven, till God worketh in him to will and to do his good pleasure"

George Whitefield


Free will carried many a soul to hell, but never a soul to heaven

- C.H. Spurgeon


Also:

The Meaning of Man’s Will

The term free will as applied to man is often glibly declared with little or no understanding of its meaning. There is actually no unified theory of man’s free

www.ligonier.org

In Him,

Bill

I am presenting the case for free will, and personally do not trust the views of reformers 1000's of years seperated from the Apostles. If you look at my book I prefer to look at the views of the Early Church Fathers, who were seperated only generationally from the Apostles. They believed in free will salvation. You would think people knowing church tradition would know more than people latter.

As an example:

Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202] speaks of free will in his writing Against Heresies one of the most important early Christian works:

The work of Irenaeus Against Heresies is one of the most precious remains of early Christian antiquity. It is devoted, on the one hand, to an account and refutation of those multiform Gnostic heresies which prevailed in the latter half of the second century; and, on the other hand, to an exposition and defence of the Catholic faith. (Rev. Rambaut W. H. 1867, Against Heresies - Introductory Note)

Here is a paragraph from Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202] who wrote many passages on the free will of man, in the following he states man is a free agent regarding salvation, and God does not force or coerce a man into either a saved or damned state:

1. This expression [of our Lord], “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,” (Mat 23:37) set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness. (Rev. Rambaut W. H. 1867, Against Heresies - Book 4 Ch 37)

References
Rev. Rambaut W. H., 1867 Against Heresies | Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1, eSword, eBook, accessed 16 April 2023, <e-Sword: Free Bible Study for the PC>.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

As for the scriptures you quoted on being a slave of sin. Let's have a closer look.

Romans 6:16-18
Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

The scripture shows that as we present ourselves, give ourselves to sin, we become enslaved by it. It is our obedience or disobedience that leads to bondage.

When man suppresses the conscience, they become enslaved, and given to darkness.

Rom 1:18-21 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them...because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

On the contray, when we obey, it leads to life.

Joh 14:22-24 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?" Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

the diversity of the ECFs,

You say there is a variation among the Early Church Fathers, have you read them? Yes/No. Which ones have you read? I have yet to see a variation, in reading, they all so far teach Free Will. Within the first 150 years or so.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Their will was so compromised by sin that they proved unwilling. Their will was broken, fatally damaged. They were unwilling to be gathered by the one Person who make them willing.

Why would God who desires them to be saved, give them a nature contrary to His will. One that can not repent.

So, there are times when sin prevents willingness. There are also times when God prevents willingness AND God can do it simply by further hardening the already hardened heart OR by bring to bear the full force of prophecy in His timing on anyone He so chooses. God chooses.

Scripture shows us why blindness is given to people.

2Th 2:11-12 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Blindness, which God does give. Only comes because men have pleasure in unrighteousness.

Rom_1:21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202] in Against Heresies talks of blindness coming only from a person’s self-rejection of the word of God.

4. ... but for the despisers and mockers who avoid and turn themselves away from this light, and who do, as it were, blind themselves, He has prepared darkness suitable to persons who oppose the light, and He has inflicted an appropriate punishment upon those who try to avoid being subject to Him. Submission to God is eternal rest, so that they who shun the light have a place worthy of their flight; and those who fly from eternal rest, have a habitation in accordance with their fleeing. Now, since all good things are with God, they who by their own determination fly from God, do defraud themselves of all good things; and having been [thus] defrauded of all good things with respect to God, they shall consequently fall under the just judgment of God. (Rev. Rambaut W. H. 1867, Against Heresies - Book 4 Ch 39 -End)

The same thing applies to the passage in Isaiah. God gives His word, but as people reject it He eventually gives them a dull heart.

 

[Josheb]

I am presenting the case for free will,

No, you are not.

I just walked with you, not in opposition to you, through five or six questions that demonstrably prove the human will is not free. Despite your own acknowledgment of those limitations (God, creation, and sin) you persist calling asserting "free will." The human will is not free. It has liberty. There is a HUGE difference between a limited will that has certain liberties and an entirely autonomous will that has no controls or limits.

Youhave failed to acknowledge these facts AND you have failed to do so even though 1) the facts of your own posts warrant that statement of agreement and acknowledgment and 2) it would be easy, proper, and correct for you to do so. In other words, the record now shows you refusing to do what is right and a right that is easy to do.

and personally do not trust the views of reformers 1000's of years separated from the Apostles.

Fine.

The problem is I haven't posted ANYTHING from any Reformer. What I posted was a few questions and a bunch of scripture. I worked with your answers. I did not start with Luther or Calvin (or Arminius). Furthermore, Reformed soteriology is heavily couched in the ECFs, especially that of Augustine. Reformed soteriology is heavily Augustinian. It is NOT something newly invented in the 16th century.

But you, in your self-confessed ignorance having failed to read those who walked this path before you and me, do not know that. You post in opposition against the "reformers of the 1000s" but Agustine lived in the 400s and Luther, Calvin, Arminius, and the other Reformers lived in the 1500s. I do not believe I have ever read you mention a single "reformers of the 1000s" by name.

If you look at my book I prefer to look at the views of the Early Church Fathers, who were seperated only generationally from the Apostles.

I have read your book. I have taken excerpts from the book (I and others did this for your benefit) in another forum and showed problems contained in the book. You acknowledged these mistakes and expressed appreciation for the information - the corrections - I and others posted. For you to now pretend I haven't read the book when you KNOW that I have is completely disingenuous and bears false witness to all the members of this forum. It is dishonest.

And the fact is you either haven't actually read the ECFs or you do not adequately understand them because 1) they held diverse views, NOT a single cohesive, unified view, and 2) the Church's doctrine on salvation wasn't formalized for almost 400 years (near the end of the ECF era) objectively demonstrating an evolution of thought about which you have never written.

You do find trading posts with the average Christian who does not know our history but the second you try to trade posts with anyone who's actually read the ECFs you prove how utterly unknowing and unthinking you are. Nothing the ECFs ever wrote can contradict the correct answers to the five questions I asked you!!!

• No ECF would ever have said a sinner's will could overrule God's will. If you think otherwise the quote the ECF denying it.
• No ECF would have ever said a sinner's will can violate the limits of creation. Only the Creator can do that!
• No ECF ever said sin has not affected human volition.

When the Bible uses the word "free" it never means "autonomous, without limitation, without controls, and without the effects of sin." Because scripture - from beginning to end - established the sovereignty of God, the limits of creation, and the egregious effects of sin, ALL mention so of "free" occur in thee context of those three limitations!!! And you went on record acknowledging those limitations. You cannot now say you're writing a book on free will after acknowledging those limits. You cannot now claim to be following scripture when the scripture asserts and never denies those limitations. You cannot now claim to be following the ECFs when the ECFs never denied those limitations.

They believed in free will salvation.

No, they did not.

You would think people knowing church tradition would know more than people latter.

Yep. Sadly, you're a poster profoundly lacking such knowledge and you wrongly imagine yourself capable of writing a book telling everyone else how to believe.

As an example:

Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202] speaks of free will in his writing Against Heresies one of the most important early Christian works:

The work of Irenaeus Against Heresies is one of the most precious remains of early Christian antiquity. It is devoted, on the one hand, to an account and refutation of those multiform Gnostic heresies which prevailed in the latter half of the second century; and, on the other hand, to an exposition and defence of the Catholic faith. (Rev. Rambaut W. H. 1867, Against Heresies - Introductory Note)

Rambaut is an extra-biblical source. Why are you not quoting Irenaeus first-hand? Why are you quoting a third-hand source quoting a second-hand source about something that has nothing to do with the doctrine of salvation? The passage you just quoted says Irenaeus refuted Gnostic heresies. Gnostic heresies have nothing to do with what we're discussing.

In other words, the ineptitude you just demonstrated disqualifies you (again) from writing a book instructing anyone how and what to believe.

Here is a paragraph from Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202] who wrote many passages on the free will of man, in the following he states man is a free agent regarding salvation, and God does not force or coerce a man into either a saved or damned state:

1. This expression [of our Lord], “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,” (Mat 23:37) set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness. (Rev. Rambaut W. H. 1867, Against Heresies - Book 4 Ch 37)

References
Rev. Rambaut W. H., 1867 Against Heresies | Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1, eSword, eBook, accessed 16 April 2023, <e-Sword: Free Bible Study for the PC>.

Once again, this is a third-hand quote of a second-hand account of Irenaeus AND it quote-mines Irenaeus. In the exact same treatise (Book III, chapter 23) Irenaeus also wrote the following,

"It was necessary, therefore, that the Lord, coming to the lost sheep, and making recapitulation of so comprehensive a dispensation, and seeking after His own handiwork, should save that very man who had been created after His image and likeness, that is, Adam, filling up the times of His condemnation, which had been incurred through disobedience — [times] which the Father had placed in His own power (Acts 1:7) [This was necessary,] too, inasmuch as the whole economy of salvation regarding man came to pass according to the good pleasure of the Father, in order that God might not be conquered, nor His wisdom lessened, [in the estimation of His creatures.] For if man, who had been created by God that he might live, after losing life, through being injured by the serpent that had corrupted him, should not any more return to life, but should be utterly [and for ever] abandoned to death, God would [in that case] have been conquered, and the wickedness of the serpent would have prevailed over the will of God. But inasmuch as God is invincible and long-suffering, He did indeed show Himself to be long-suffering in the matter of the correction of man and the probation of all, as I have already observed; and by means of the second man did He bind the strong man, and spoiled his goods, Matthew 12:29 and abolished death, vivifying that man who had been in a state of death. For at the first Adam became a vessel in his (Satan's) possession, whom he did also hold under his power, that is, by bringing sin on him iniquitously, and under color of immortality entailing death upon him. For, while promising that they should be as gods, which was in no way possible for him to be, he wrought death in them: wherefore he who had led man captive, was justly captured in his turn by God; but man, who had been led captive, was loosed from the bonds of condemnation."​

• The Lord came to the lost.
• The Lord sought after His own handiwork (not the work of sinful flesh).
• Man is condemned.
• Salvation came by the good pleasure (remember "good pleasure" is the correct translation of one of the words used for "will"] of God (not sinful man).
• Neither God, nor His wisdom, may be conquered or lessened.
• God acted so that man would lose his life, having been corrupted by the serpent, and there would be no return to life apart from God.
• The "second man" [Jesus] bound the "strong man" [Satan], and "spoiled his goods." (no mention of human involvement).
• Man had been in a state of death, but God revived him.
• It is not possible for men to be gods )what was the first question I asked?)
• Man was captive, captured, first by the serpent and then by God.
• Man was loosened from the bonds of condemnation by God.

That is what Irenaeus wrote. That passage cannot be made to contradict Rambaud's quote. Rambaud's quote cannot be made to conflict with what I just quoted. No unidentified third party can make a second-hand source contradict the whole of Irenaeus.

Your work is shoddy.

I got out my copy of "Against Heresies," and found that text myself. It took me 39.91 seconds to find that text (granted, I have read Irenaeus before, so I knew what to look for), so there's no excuse for what you've done. It took me another 58.61 seconds (I timed it) to copy and paste the text into this post. It takes time to read all that Irenaeus wrote but, once read, it does not take very long to track down relevant material. It takes time to read Polycarp, Clement, Ignatius AND do so in chronological order so their flow of thought and reasoning can be followed AND then consider their views as a whole.

Until you've done that you've got no business claiming to rely on the ECFs. It has just been proven you don't correctly understand Irenaeus. It; has also just been proven you do not rely on original sources. It's also just been proven you consider the ECFs more authoritative than scripture. Worst of all, it's just been proven you are comfortable with quote-mines (misrepresenting the source in its entirety). Any one of these practices would be problematic (as well as sinful and dishonest). You have committed them all.

You do so a lot.

That is why I tried to take a different tack in this op. I tried to begin with THE most basic precepts.

• No sinner can usurp God.
• No sinner can defy the limits of creation.
• Every sinner is adversely affected by sin.

I did not impose my views. I asked for your views, and then I stated my agreement with your views. Whether you like it or not your views agree with the Reformed view . Or, rather, as far as the five questions I asked go..... you, me, the Reformed view all agree with scripture and the ECFs . You've spent months going from forum to forum posting positions that simply are not true or correct and Post 47 and 50 are any indication, then you do so based on extra-biblical third-hand and second-hand sources that are themselves biased and do not present the whole of Irenaeus' views.

You have been victimized!

Partly by your own doing.

You say there is a variation among the Early Church Fathers, have you read them? Yes/No. Which ones have you read?

YES! ALL of them. At least twice! I read them. And then I went back and re-read them in chronological order. I have also read multiple second-hand sources commenting and chronicling the history of the Church, especially on the matter of soteriology. I can be your best friend or your worst enemy because when you incorrectly and unjustly criticize others with lazy arguments filled with error and fallacy you deserve to be corrected and publicly so because those who have not done the homework (especially the less mature in Christ) may be misled by your posts and your book.

I have yet to see a variation, in reading, they all so far teach Free Will.

As I have told you many times, the term "free will" does not occur in a vacuum. No Christian using the term "free will" uses it to mean "autonomous, absent any and all influence or control, unfettered and without limitation." If that is what you have thought when reading the ECFs then you have NEVER correctly understood what you are reading. You read those sources with a pre-existing bias.

Within the first 150 years or so.

Which is less than half of the ECFs. Presumably, what you mean is you've read those who were alive during the lives of John, Paul, and Peter, and were directly taught by those apostles - even though Irenaeus is a second-generation Greek ECF. You have been shown how Irenaeus believed man was in fact dead, captured, bound, and condemned. Never again read Irenaeus to say otherwise. ALL his commentary on the will MUST be read in a manner consistent with what you were just shown.



If sinful man cannot usurp God's will, overcome the limitations of creation, and the adverse effects of sin then man is not free. He is not autonomous, without influence or control, unfettered, and without limitation. There is no such thing as "free will salvation." And when your reading of the ECFs gets to the debate between Augustine and Pelagius then you'll better understand how and why that is the case. You'll also understand why Provisionism is a flawed soteriology.

 

[Josheb]

Can you acknowledge the logically necessary conclusion of your own answers to the five questions originally asked?


If the will of sinful man cannot overrule God's will, cannot defy the limits of creation, and has been adversely affected by sin, then sinful man is not volitionally free.

Yes or no?


Once that question has been answered then perhaps we can move on to a scripturally accurate view of volition as it pertains to salvation - being saved from the limiting sinful state.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

No, you are not.

I just walked with you, not in opposition to you, through five or six questions that demonstrably prove the human will is not free. Despite your own acknowledgment of those limitations (God, creation, and sin) you persist calling asserting "free will." The human will is not free. It has liberty. There is a HUGE difference between a limited will that has certain liberties and an entirely autonomous will that has no controls or limits.

Youhave failed to acknowledge these facts AND you have failed to do so even though 1) the facts of your own posts warrant that statement of agreement and acknowledgment and 2) it would be easy, proper, and correct for you to do so. In other words, the record now shows you refusing to do what is right and a right that is easy to do.

Fine.

The problem is I haven't posted ANYTHING from any Reformer. What I posted was a few questions and a bunch of scripture. I worked with your answers. I did not start with Luther or Calvin (or Arminius). Furthermore, Reformed soteriology is heavily couched in the ECFs, especially that of Augustine. Reformed soteriology is heavily Augustinian. It is NOT something newly invented in the 16th century.

But you, in your self-confessed ignorance having failed to read those who walked this path before you and me, do not know that. You post in opposition against the "reformers of the 1000s" but Agustine lived in the 400s and Luther, Calvin, Arminius, and the other Reformers lived in the 1500s. I do not believe I have ever read you mention a single "reformers of the 1000s" by name.

I have read your book. I have taken excerpts from the book (I and others did this for your benefit) in another forum and showed problems contained in the book. You acknowledged these mistakes and expressed appreciation for the information - the corrections - I and others posted. For you to now pretend I haven't read the book when you KNOW that I have is completely disingenuous and bears false witness to all the members of this forum. It is dishonest.

And the fact is you either haven't actually read the ECFs or you do not adequately understand them because 1) they held diverse views, NOT a single cohesive, unified view, and 2) the Church's doctrine on salvation wasn't formalized for almost 400 years (near the end of the ECF era) objectively demonstrating an evolution of thought about which you have never written.

You do find trading posts with the average Christian who does not know our history but the second you try to trade posts with anyone who's actually read the ECFs you prove how utterly unknowing and unthinking you are. Nothing the ECFs ever wrote can contradict the correct answers to the five questions I asked you!!!

• No ECF would ever have said a sinner's will could overrule God's will. If you think otherwise the quote the ECF denying it.
• No ECF would have ever said a sinner's will can violate the limits of creation. Only the Creator can do that!
• No ECF ever said sin has not affected human volition.

When the Bible uses the word "free" it never means "autonomous, without limitation, without controls, and without the effects of sin." Because scripture - from beginning to end - established the sovereignty of God, the limits of creation, and the egregious effects of sin, ALL mention so of "free" occur in thee context of those three limitations!!! And you went on record acknowledging those limitations. You cannot now say you're writing a book on free will after acknowledging those limits. You cannot now claim to be following scripture when the scripture asserts and never denies those limitations. You cannot now claim to be following the ECFs when the ECFs never denied those limitations.

No, they did not.

Yep. Sadly, you're a poster profoundly lacking such knowledge and you wrongly imagine yourself capable of writing a book telling everyone else how to believe.

Rambaut is an extra-biblical source. Why are you not quoting Irenaeus first-hand? Why are you quoting a third-hand source quoting a second-hand source about something that has nothing to do with the doctrine of salvation? The passage you just quoted says Irenaeus refuted Gnostic heresies. Gnostic heresies have nothing to do with what we're discussing.

In other words, the ineptitude you just demonstrated disqualifies you (again) from writing a book instructing anyone how and what to believe.

Once again, this is a third-hand quote of a second-hand account of Irenaeus AND it quote-mines Irenaeus. In the exact same treatise (Book III, chapter 23) Irenaeus also wrote the following,

"It was necessary, therefore, that the Lord, coming to the lost sheep, and making recapitulation of so comprehensive a dispensation, and seeking after His own handiwork, should save that very man who had been created after His image and likeness, that is, Adam, filling up the times of His condemnation, which had been incurred through disobedience — [times] which the Father had placed in His own power (Acts 1:7) [This was necessary,] too, inasmuch as the whole economy of salvation regarding man came to pass according to the good pleasure of the Father, in order that God might not be conquered, nor His wisdom lessened, [in the estimation of His creatures.] For if man, who had been created by God that he might live, after losing life, through being injured by the serpent that had corrupted him, should not any more return to life, but should be utterly [and for ever] abandoned to death, God would [in that case] have been conquered, and the wickedness of the serpent would have prevailed over the will of God. But inasmuch as God is invincible and long-suffering, He did indeed show Himself to be long-suffering in the matter of the correction of man and the probation of all, as I have already observed; and by means of the second man did He bind the strong man, and spoiled his goods, Matthew 12:29 and abolished death, vivifying that man who had been in a state of death. For at the first Adam became a vessel in his (Satan's) possession, whom he did also hold under his power, that is, by bringing sin on him iniquitously, and under color of immortality entailing death upon him. For, while promising that they should be as gods, which was in no way possible for him to be, he wrought death in them: wherefore he who had led man captive, was justly captured in his turn by God; but man, who had been led captive, was loosed from the bonds of condemnation."​

• The Lord came to the lost.
• The Lord sought after His own handiwork (not the work of sinful flesh).
• Man is condemned.
• Salvation came by the good pleasure (remember "good pleasure" is the correct translation of one of the words used for "will"] of God (not sinful man).
• Neither God, nor His wisdom, may be conquered or lessened.
• God acted so that man would lose his life, having been corrupted by the serpent, and there would be no return to life apart from God.
• The "second man" [Jesus] bound the "strong man" [Satan], and "spoiled his goods." (no mention of human involvement).
• Man had been in a state of death, but God revived him.
• It is not possible for men to be gods )what was the first question I asked?)
• Man was captive, captured, first by the serpent and then by God.
• Man was loosened from the bonds of condemnation by God.

That is what Irenaeus wrote. That passage cannot be made to contradict Rambaud's quote. Rambaud's quote cannot be made to conflict with what I just quoted. No unidentified third party can make a second-hand source contradict the whole of Irenaeus.

Your work is shoddy.

I got out my copy of "Against Heresies," and found that text myself. It took me 39.91 seconds to find that text (granted, I have read Irenaeus before, so I knew what to look for), so there's no excuse for what you've done. It took me another 58.61 seconds (I timed it) to copy and paste the text into this post. It takes time to read all that Irenaeus wrote but, once read, it does not take very long to track down relevant material. It takes time to read Polycarp, Clement, Ignatius AND do so in chronological order so their flow of thought and reasoning can be followed AND then consider their views as a whole.

Until you've done that you've got no business claiming to rely on the ECFs. It has just been proven you don't correctly understand Irenaeus. It; has also just been proven you do not rely on original sources. It's also just been proven you consider the ECFs more authoritative than scripture. Worst of all, it's just been proven you are comfortable with quote-mines (misrepresenting the source in its entirety). Any one of these practices would be problematic (as well as sinful and dishonest). You have committed them all.

You do so a lot.

That is why I tried to take a different tack in this op. I tried to begin with THE most basic precepts.

• No sinner can usurp God.
• No sinner can defy the limits of creation.
• Every sinner is adversely affected by sin.

I did not impose my views. I asked for your views, and then I stated my agreement with your views. Whether you like it or not your views agree with the Reformed view . Or, rather, as far as the five questions I asked go..... you, me, the Reformed view all agree with scripture and the ECFs . You've spent months going from forum to forum posting positions that simply are not true or correct and Post 47 and 50 are any indication, then you do so based on extra-biblical third-hand and second-hand sources that are themselves biased and do not present the whole of Irenaeus' views.

You have been victimized!

Partly by your own doing.

YES! ALL of them. At least twice! I read them. And then I went back and re-read them in chronological order. I have also read multiple second-hand sources commenting and chronicling the history of the Church, especially on the matter of soteriology. I can be your best friend or your worst enemy because when you incorrectly and unjustly criticize others with lazy arguments filled with error and fallacy you deserve to be corrected and publicly so because those who have not done the homework (especially the less mature in Christ) may be misled by your posts and your book.

As I have told you many times, the term "free will" does not occur in a vacuum. No Christian using the term "free will" uses it to mean "autonomous, absent any and all influence or control, unfettered and without limitation." If that is what you have thought when reading the ECFs then you have NEVER correctly understood what you are reading. You read those sources with a pre-existing bias.

Which is less than half of the ECFs. Presumably, what you mean is you've read those who were alive during the lives of John, Paul, and Peter, and were directly taught by those apostles - even though Irenaeus is a second-generation Greek ECF. You have been shown how Irenaeus believed man was in fact dead, captured, bound, and condemned. Never again read Irenaeus to say otherwise. ALL his commentary on the will MUST be read in a manner consistent with what you were just shown.



If sinful man cannot usurp God's will, overcome the limitations of creation, and the adverse effects of sin then man is not free. He is not autonomous, without influence or control, unfettered, and without limitation. There is no such thing as "free will salvation." And when your reading of the ECFs gets to the debate between Augustine and Pelagius then you'll better understand how and why that is the case. You'll also understand why Provisionism is a flawed soteriology.

What are you talking about? You said:

Why are you not quoting Irenaeus first-hand? Why are you quoting a third-hand source quoting a second-hand source about something that has nothing to do with the doctrine of salvation?

The following was a direct quote from Irenaeus.

1. This expression [of our Lord], “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,” (Mat 23:37) set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness. (Rev. Rambaut W. H. 1867, Against Heresies - Book 4 Ch 37)

You have obviously not read his work with care, if you think that is a quote from Rev. Rev. Rambaut. It is a direct quote from Against Herasies Irenaeus work. The reference refers to the book not the speaker.

You accuse me of quote mining but obviously know nothing of what Irenaeus actually taught.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Until you've done that you've got no business claiming to rely on the ECFs. It has just been proven you don't correctly understand Irenaeus. It; has also just been proven you do not rely on original sources. It's also just been proven you consider the ECFs more authoritative than scripture. Worst of all, it's just been proven you are comfortable with quote-mines (misrepresenting the source in its entirety). Any one of these practices would be problematic (as well as sinful and dishonest). You have committed them all.

You accuse me of being sinful and dishonest. As for the quote mine as you call it. Irenaeus is a very large work. I did not even know where to look to find the truth. So I prayed and asked the LORD to show me what they truly believed about free will. I then randomly opened up the work Against Herasees and it opened to the very passage you call a quote mine, which if read in full, supports the notion of free will salvation in man. It is God's work, don't call me a sinner again.

I have since read much of his work. But I have skipped parts referring to the Herasies, because they are hard to read and irrelivent to today's audience.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Which is less than half of the ECFs. Presumably, what you mean is you've read those who were alive during the lives of John, Paul, and Peter, and were directly taught by those apostles - even though Irenaeus is a second-generation Greek ECF.

Don't you think there is a valid reason for getting the thoughts of the earliest church fathers, all the one's I have read believed in free will. The ones closest to the apostles.

the Church's doctrine on salvation wasn't formalized for almost 400 years

400 years, that's just enough time for the devil to corrupt the view of the word of God. I will stick with those who knew the apostle or at least were close to the church.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Hi - so that I get a good overview of the early church view. I have started this thread Earliest Church Father's View of God feel free to participate.

 

[Josheb]

What are you talking about? You said:



The following was a direct quote from Irenaeus.

1. This expression [of our Lord], “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,” (Mat 23:37) set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness. (Rev. Rambaut W. H. 1867, Against Heresies - Book 4 Ch 37)

You have obviously not read his work with care, if you think that is a quote from Rev. Rev. Rambaut. It is a direct quote from Against Herasies Irenaeus work. The reference refers to the book not the speaker.

Now you're being disingenuous (or foolish).

From what book did you get that quote?

You accuse me of quote mining but obviously know nothing of what Irenaeus actually taught.

And yet I quoted directly from Irenaeus to show the quote you posted 1) a quote mine and 2) not all that Irenaeus believed on the matter of salvation. You picked a portion about how God created humanity that has nothing to do with the effects of sin (I've never disputed Adam was created a free agent, and if you think that is what Reformed soteriology teaches then you're not just wrong about Irenaeus, you're also wrong about Reformed theology and everything in your book built on that error is a straw man.

The fact remains the two passages quoted from Irenaeus must be understood cohesively and you have not shown any evidence you understand the two that way.

 

[Josheb]

You accuse me of being sinful and dishonest. As for the quote mine as you call it. Irenaeus is a very large work. I did not even know where to look to find the truth. So I prayed and asked the LORD to show me what they truly believed about free will. I then randomly opened up the work Against Herasees and it opened to the very passage you call a quote mine, which if read in full, supports the notion of free will salvation in man. It is God's work, don't call me a sinner again.

I have since read much of his work. But I have skipped parts referring to the Herasies, because they are hard to read and irrelivent to today's audience.

The Holy Spirit did not direct you to quote mine Irenaeus. Quote mining is the modern equivalent of bearing false witness and that is something God loathes, not something His Spirit promotes. Yes, I accuse you of being sinful and dishonest because rather than correct your mistake you defend it. Rather than address the matter - how to reconcile the two passages - you defend your quote mine. You move from forum to forum trashing Calvinism and Calvinists without having done the homework.

Irenaeus is a very large work.

Which implies you lack knowledge of the whole.

I did not even know where to look to find the truth.

Which is a statement of ignorance, not something to be proud of or think is persuasive and defensible in any way.

So I prayed and asked the LORD to show me what they truly believed about free will. I then randomly opened up the work Against Herasees and it opened to the very passage...

You've just contradicted yourself. Something Spirit-directed is not random.

you call a quote mine, which if read in full, supports the notion of free will salvation in man.

If it is read in full then it will not contradict what I posted. What I posted came from the exact same source. They cannot contradict one another. That was the point of what I posted. You did not read Irenaeus in his entirety. You took a small portion that confirmed your already-existing biases and appealed to him as an authority over scripture.

It is God's work, don't call me a sinner again.

Your own words and methods indict you.

I have since read much of his work.

Which means you have not read him in his entirety. You most certainly have not reconciled what you quoted with what I quoted. The two MUST speak with one voice, otherwise Irenaeus cannot be relied upon.

But I have skipped parts referring to the Herasies, because they are hard to read and irrelivent to today's audience.

Speak for yourself. They're not hard to read for me.


Have you read Clement or Polycarp?

 

[Josheb]

Don't you think there is a valid reason for getting the thoughts of the earliest church fathers, all the one's I have read believed in free will. The ones closest to the apostles.

Ugh! I have asserted that very position with you multiple on occasions AND recommended you do so with the entire history of Christian thought, doctrine and practice.

400 years, that's just enough time for the devil to corrupt the view of the word of God.

This is illuminating. You don't give credit to God, but the devil. $00 years, 1500 years, 2000 years is also plenty of time for God to work in His children - exactly as He did during the history in the Bible.

I will stick with those who knew the apostle or at least were close to the church.

Well, so far the evidence show you unwilling or unable to reconcile the two passages from Irenaeus. You're not even making an effort to try.

 

[Josheb]

Why have you avoided answering the last question I asked?

If the sinner's will cannot overrule God's will, cannot overrule the limitations of creation, and has been adversely affected by sin.... then is it actually free?

Yes or no?