What Is Free Will?

[reformed1689]

Relying on corrupt modern Bible versions I see. There's no such thing as a "sin nature". That is a modern corrupt translation from different Greek New Testament manuscripts which the KJV translators did not use. Apostle compared our flesh being what causes most of our sins, and the "sin nature" philosophy tries to leave Paul's teaching.

You are falsely dwelling on the idea that none can be righteous, when the very fact is per Genesis that Abraham believed God, and God counted Abraham's Faith as righteousness!

You can find passages in the Psalms 14 that claim also there is none that follow God, but those are about the 'fool'.

Thus you have created a leaven doctrine from men 'using' (actually abusing) God's Word, and the basis of your proposed doctrines on this thread are from that fallacy. And it's because you fail to distinguish the difference between the flesh, which cannot follow God, and our spirit, which desires to follow God (per Romans 7).

You realize the KJV says the same exact thing right?

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Relying on corrupt modern Bible versions I see. There's no such thing as a "sin nature". That is a modern corrupt translation from different Greek New Testament manuscripts which the KJV translators did not use.

Part of the problem would be the NIV and its attempt to force Calvinistic ideas into the Bible and the way the NIV translates "flesh" (sarx) into "sinful nature'. The authors of the NIV took the liberty to make 'sarx' mean whatever they wanted to (3rd paragraph below):


"Equally horrendous is the arbitrary translation of sarx in the (NIV's) New Testament as "sinful nature." Of the 151 times sarx is used in the New Testament, the King James Version translates it as "flesh" 148 times and "carnal" or "carnally" the other three times (Rom. 8:6-7 and Heb. 9:10). According to Vine, Kittel, and others, sarx does have different shades of meaning, depending on the context. "Sinful nature," however, does not appear among the definitions, although some may seen close to it. But even if some lexicographer did define the word as "sinful nature," would that prove that it is so? No! No more than the NIV's using such a definition proves them correct.

How do we know that "sinful nature" is an incorrect translation? One reason is that the other major translations never chose to use that phrase. The KJV, NKJV, ASV, NAS, and the RSV all use "flesh." Some of these are as literal as they can be; only "dynamic equivalence" could produce such a mis-concept, which underscores what has been pointed out throughout this chapter: the translating committee has complete liberty to use what they "think, feel, or imagine" are equivalents to the words in the Greek text.

The NIV enjoys using about any word but "flesh" to define sarx. In fact, they must have considered it the most versatile word in the New Testament. They translate it "flesh" 33 time, "body" 25, "sinful nature" 25 times, "one" five times, "man" four times, "mankind" (Luke 3:6), "people" (John 17:2; Acts 2:17), "human standards" (John 8:15), "physical" (Rom. 2:28), "in this matter" (Rom. 4:1), "natural selves" (Rom. 6:19), "natural descent" (John 1:13), "external" (Heb. 9:10), "worldly point of view" (2 Cor. 5:16), "worldly manner" (2 Cor. 1:7), "life" (1 Cor. 7:28), "natural" (Rom. 9:8), "race" (Rom. 9:3), "life on earth" (Heb. 5:7), "nature" (Rom. 8:5; Gal. 6:8), "sinful mind" (Rom. 8:7), "sinful man" (Rom. 8:3,6), "outwardly" (Heb. 9:13), "personally" (Col. 2:1), "unspiritual mind" (Col. 2:18), "ordinary way" (Gal. 4:23,29), "another" (1 Cor. 15:29), "human ancestry" (Rom. 9:5), "in this matter" (Rom 4:1), "standards of the world" (2 Cor. 10:2), "good impression outwardly" (Gal. 6:12), "birth" (Eph. 2:11), "evil human desires" (1 Pet. 4:2), "illness" (Gal. 4:13-14), and about a dozen other ways.

When "sinful nature" is used, the translators do add a footnote which provides the alternative "flesh," but such is not exceedingly helpful. First of all, when a text is read publicly as a Scripture reading or as part of the text of a sermon, nobody bothers to say "or flesh." Secondly, when young people memorize a passage of Scripture (and Rom. 8:1 is a good one), they will not likely add "or flesh" when quoting the verse. Even if they did, however, it would still not be helpful because they are not equivalents, dynamic or otherwise!" Gary Summers
A REVIEW OF THE NIV


If one were born without legs, could you rightly, justly condemn that person for not being able to walk? Of course not. So if one is innately born with a sin nature, total depravity that causes one to only to be able to sin, then can you rightly, justly condemn that person for that innate nature they had no control over? Of course not. Would God be just, righteous Himself if He caused a man to do wrong, then God punishes that man for the wrong God caused him to do?

"THE IMPLICATIONS OF A "SINFUL NATURE"
Why protest this unfortunate rendering of "sinful nature"? It has long been held a matter of logic that any teaching which implies a false doctrine is itself false. What ideas does "a sinful nature" suggest? If man has a "sinful nature," where did he get it? The first choice is that God created us that way. If so, then He can hardly expect us to do anything other than sin. If we all possess an uncontrollable urge to sin, and God put it there, how can He accuse us of choosing wrongly? Does anyone condemn a crippled man for not walking or a blind man for not seeing? Likewise, if God put within us an unfailing desire to sin, how then can we be justly blamed and condemned?

The Bible teaches that when God finished the Creation (including man), it was very good (Gen. 1:31). Such could not be said if man were created with a "sinful nature." In such a case, sin would have been waiting for a chance to express itself. Rather, we were created with free-will, which allows sin to be an option, but not a necessity.

That we have free will is the reason we are encouraged to make the right decision. God calls for us to obey (Mat. 11:28-30; Rev. 22:17). We still have the choice to obey or disobey--even as God's people. Joshua commanded the people to choose whom they would serve (Jos. 24:14-15). If we fail to please God, it will be our fault. Freedom of choice is that which allows God to hold us accountable. Animals won't be judged; they cannot help being what they are; human beings can.

The second way that man might have obtained a sinful nature is through the "fall." Somehow, when man sinned, he became depraved and incapable of doing good. The nature of man changed at that moment, Calvinists say. But there are a few problems with this theory. The first is that hereditary total depravity is unnecessary to explain why people sin today. Ask a Calvinist for the reason, and he will answer: "Depravity." Then ask: "Is that why Adam sinned?" "Oh, no; Adam was made in the image of God. Mankind only became depraved after the 'fall.'" If Adam did not need depravity in order to sin, why do we? Free-will explains both situations; depravity explains neither.

Also, the "fall" rationale carries with it the same basic problems the first theory has. How is mankind benefited if Adam was not created depraved, but we are? We still would not be able to help it; our sinfulness would not be our fault. God could still not hold us accountable. Besides, God told even Cain (after the "fall") that he had a choice: he could do well or give in to sin (free-will).

Somebody could perform a real service by polling the NIV translators. It would be interesting to find out how many of them believe in the tenets of Calvinism and how many of them think that man is born in a depraved condition. Where else would they get the idea of "sinful nature"? Their repeated use of this phrase disqualifies the NIV as a reliable, accurate, or unbiased translation."
A REVIEW OF THE NIV
(my emp)

 

[reformed1689]

Part of the problem would be the NIV and its attempt to force Calvinistic ideas into the Bible and the way the NIV translates "flesh" (sarx) into "sinful nature'. The authors of the NIV took the liberty to make 'sarx' mean whatever they wanted to (3rd paragraph below):


"Equally horrendous is the arbitrary translation of sarx in the (NIV's) New Testament as "sinful nature." Of the 151 times sarx is used in the New Testament, the King James Version translates it as "flesh" 148 times and "carnal" or "carnally" the other three times (Rom. 8:6-7 and Heb. 9:10). According to Vine, Kittel, and others, sarx does have different shades of meaning, depending on the context. "Sinful nature," however, does not appear among the definitions, although some may seen close to it. But even if some lexicographer did define the word as "sinful nature," would that prove that it is so? No! No more than the NIV's using such a definition proves them correct.

How do we know that "sinful nature" is an incorrect translation? One reason is that the other major translations never chose to use that phrase. The KJV, NKJV, ASV, NAS, and the RSV all use "flesh." Some of these are as literal as they can be; only "dynamic equivalence" could produce such a mis-concept, which underscores what has been pointed out throughout this chapter: the translating committee has complete liberty to use what they "think, feel, or imagine" are equivalents to the words in the Greek text.

The NIV enjoys using about any word but "flesh" to define sarx. In fact, they must have considered it the most versatile word in the New Testament. They translate it "flesh" 33 time, "body" 25, "sinful nature" 25 times, "one" five times, "man" four times, "mankind" (Luke 3:6), "people" (John 17:2; Acts 2:17), "human standards" (John 8:15), "physical" (Rom. 2:28), "in this matter" (Rom. 4:1), "natural selves" (Rom. 6:19), "natural descent" (John 1:13), "external" (Heb. 9:10), "worldly point of view" (2 Cor. 5:16), "worldly manner" (2 Cor. 1:7), "life" (1 Cor. 7:28), "natural" (Rom. 9:8), "race" (Rom. 9:3), "life on earth" (Heb. 5:7), "nature" (Rom. 8:5; Gal. 6:8), "sinful mind" (Rom. 8:7), "sinful man" (Rom. 8:3,6), "outwardly" (Heb. 9:13), "personally" (Col. 2:1), "unspiritual mind" (Col. 2:18), "ordinary way" (Gal. 4:23,29), "another" (1 Cor. 15:29), "human ancestry" (Rom. 9:5), "in this matter" (Rom 4:1), "standards of the world" (2 Cor. 10:2), "good impression outwardly" (Gal. 6:12), "birth" (Eph. 2:11), "evil human desires" (1 Pet. 4:2), "illness" (Gal. 4:13-14), and about a dozen other ways.

When "sinful nature" is used, the translators do add a footnote which provides the alternative "flesh," but such is not exceedingly helpful. First of all, when a text is read publicly as a Scripture reading or as part of the text of a sermon, nobody bothers to say "or flesh." Secondly, when young people memorize a passage of Scripture (and Rom. 8:1 is a good one), they will not likely add "or flesh" when quoting the verse. Even if they did, however, it would still not be helpful because they are not equivalents, dynamic or otherwise!" Gary Summers
A REVIEW OF THE NIV


If one were born without legs, could you rightly, justly condemn that person for not being able to walk? Of course not. So if one is innately born with a sin nature, total depravity that causes one to only to be able to sin, then can you rightly, justly condemn that person for that innate nature they had no control over? Of course not. Would God be just, righteous Himself if He caused a man to do wrong, then God punishes that man for the wrong God caused him to do?

"THE IMPLICATIONS OF A "SINFUL NATURE"
Why protest this unfortunate rendering of "sinful nature"? It has long been held a matter of logic that any teaching which implies a false doctrine is itself false. What ideas does "a sinful nature" suggest? If man has a "sinful nature," where did he get it? The first choice is that God created us that way. If so, then He can hardly expect us to do anything other than sin. If we all possess an uncontrollable urge to sin, and God put it there, how can He accuse us of choosing wrongly? Does anyone condemn a crippled man for not walking or a blind man for not seeing? Likewise, if God put within us an unfailing desire to sin, how then can we be justly blamed and condemned?

The Bible teaches that when God finished the Creation (including man), it was very good (Gen. 1:31). Such could not be said if man were created with a "sinful nature." In such a case, sin would have been waiting for a chance to express itself. Rather, we were created with free-will, which allows sin to be an option, but not a necessity.

That we have free will is the reason we are encouraged to make the right decision. God calls for us to obey (Mat. 11:28-30; Rev. 22:17). We still have the choice to obey or disobey--even as God's people. Joshua commanded the people to choose whom they would serve (Jos. 24:14-15). If we fail to please God, it will be our fault. Freedom of choice is that which allows God to hold us accountable. Animals won't be judged; they cannot help being what they are; human beings can.

The second way that man might have obtained a sinful nature is through the "fall." Somehow, when man sinned, he became depraved and incapable of doing good. The nature of man changed at that moment, Calvinists say. But there are a few problems with this theory. The first is that hereditary total depravity is unnecessary to explain why people sin today. Ask a Calvinist for the reason, and he will answer: "Depravity." Then ask: "Is that why Adam sinned?" "Oh, no; Adam was made in the image of God. Mankind only became depraved after the 'fall.'" If Adam did not need depravity in order to sin, why do we? Free-will explains both situations; depravity explains neither.

Also, the "fall" rationale carries with it the same basic problems the first theory has. How is mankind benefited if Adam was not created depraved, but we are? We still would not be able to help it; our sinfulness would not be our fault. God could still not hold us accountable. Besides, God told even Cain (after the "fall") that he had a choice: he could do well or give in to sin (free-will).

Somebody could perform a real service by polling the NIV translators. It would be interesting to find out how many of them believe in the tenets of Calvinism and how many of them think that man is born in a depraved condition. Where else would they get the idea of "sinful nature"? Their repeated use of this phrase disqualifies the NIV as a reliable, accurate, or unbiased translation."
A REVIEW OF THE NIV
(my emp)

Calvinism was around way before the NIV so you guys really need to do better. KJV supports Calvinism too, as did the Geneva Bible, the Luther Bible, the ORIGINAL BIBLE.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

The idea of being born totally depraved is read into Romans 3.

Paul spends Romans 1 proving Gentiles are sinners and then Romans 2 that Jews are sinners. NOWHERE in these 2 chapters does Paul say men are sinners for how they are innately born with sin/sin nature/totally depraved. If such were the case men are innately born sinners/sin nature there would be no better context than Romans 1 and 2 for that idea to be mentioned but it is not found at all!

After proving all, both groups Gentiles and Jews are sinners, we know sinners are in need of justification which is Paul's theme.

In Romans 3 , Paul spends the first part of Romans 3 telling us what does NOT justify (the OT law of Moses) and the latter part of the chapter Paul tells us what does justify, that being faith.

The OT law (or any other law like it) that requires the work of perfect flawless law keeping cannot justify for the Jew could not keep it perfectly, (Galatians 3:10)..."Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them". That OT law did not even require faith, just doing it perfectly was required to be justified by it (Galatians 3:12)..."And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them." Since the Jew could not keep all of it perfectly, then "no man is justified by the law in the sight of God" (Galatians 3:11).

Since that OT law that was given to the Jew could not justify the Jew, then the Jew was no better than the Gentile..."What then? are we (Jews) better than they (Gentiles)? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;"

How do we know the Jew was not justified by the OT law? For in Romans 3:10-18 Paul quotes some passages from the OT law proving the Jew sinned therefore unable to be justified by that OT law.

Points:
1) those quotes from Romans 3:10-18 are being directly specifically at the Jew, not every individual universally. For after Paul quotes those OT passages Paul says in v19 "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.". Paul refers to all those OT verses cited as "law" and that OT law was only given to the Jew, hence those verses in 10-18 are only directed at the Jew. Paul is simply telling the Jew that your own law given to you says you are a sinner.

"Here (Romans 3) Paul cites six O.T. passages which prove his point. These were from the utterances entrusted to the Jewish nation. Someone might argue that such passages were referring to wicked Gentiles, in verse 19 Paul will answer that argument, by pointing out that the 'Law', spoke to those under it, i.e. these passages were talking about Jews!" Dunagan Comm.

2) the only inability found in this context is the inability of that OT law to justify the Jew. Nothing at all is said about the Jew being innately born totally depraved. The fact the Jew could not keep the law perfectly does not prove 'total inability'. God has never required perfect flawless law keeping for one to be justified, but God does require a simple faithful obedience which man IS CAPABLE of doing. Abraham and David both sinned for neither were perfect. Though not perfect, they both were capable of having an obedient faith and justified by that faith. Paul quoted David in Romans 3 and David was an obedient man who sought after God and was righteous.

3) "There is none righteous"
There were men who were righteous as Abraham, David and Abel (Hebrews 11:4) but there were none righteous in the absolute sense. Again, the OT law did require absolute perfect righteousness to be justified by it, yet no Jew could keep it absolutely perfect hence 'none righteous' in the absolute sense required by the OT law. Abraham,David and Abel were justified instead by a faithful obedience. Those under the OT law who had a faithful obedience had all their sins cleansed away by Christ when Christ died and shed His blood (Hebrews 9:15). When Christ shed His blood it flowed backwards to cover the sin of those under the first covenant, those who were obedient. Hence their righteousness came by the shed blood of Christ washing away all their sins making them righteous through Christ due to their faithful obedience.

4)"there is none that seeketh after God"
There were those who did seek after God as Abraham and David. Men do have the free will to "set their heart" to choose to seek the Lord or not (1 Chronicles 22:19; 2 Chronicles 12:14). Men are commanded to seek God (Isaiah 55:6), no sense to command men to seek God if man cannot possibly do so. Paul said of men "That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things" and "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:" Therefore man does have the ability, but also the responsibility and accountability to seek after God.

Again, Paul was specifically addressing the Jews in Romans 3:10-18 for their not seeking God. Paul was attacking the Jew's hypocrisy. The Jews prided themselves on being students of the law, studying the law daily and having great knowledge of the law, when in reality they did not know the law....

"....of all the sins the Jew considered himself above, it was spiritual ignorance due to a failure to seek God; and yet, right here it was in their own Bible. They neither understood nor sought after God. True, they knew many things; but they had never understood that their entire system was temporary, typical, and comparable to the scaffolding of a building, and due to be torn down when the great antitype was revealed. They had somehow missed the overriding fact that Judaism was not designed to be God's permanent order of things." Coffman Comm.

"There is none that seeketh after God ... What a paradox was this, that the chosen nation who had received the revelation of God and who had studied it so meticulously, were, in all that study, not seeking God at all, due to the lack of any proper motive, and having forgotten the warning of Hosea, "Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the Lord" (Hosea 6:3). Knowing what the scripture says is one thing; following on to know the Lord is another. Since the Jews were not seeking after God, what was the point of all their study? Christ himself pinpointed the trouble: it was this, that they desired the praise of men rather than the praise of God (John 12:43)." Coffman Comm

Jesus Himself called these Jews "blind" (Matthew 23) and said they did not seek things from God (John 5:44) but sought to glorify themselves. Paul in Romans 3:10-18 is giving a scathing rebuke of the Jews..."Notice the accusations against the proud Jewish race (Romans 3:12). Despite their access to the word of God and their devotion to study, God says they "lack understanding" (Romans 3:11). Despite having in their possession the word of God, they didn't use it to 'seek' Him (3:11)" Dunagan Comm.


5) "They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."
Paul does NOT say they were BORN out of the way or BORN unprofitable but that have gone out of the way, they become unprofitable showing personable culpability not how one is innately born.

"Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways:" These words are used to describe the sinful Jew, not referring to new born infants who cannot speak, curse, shed blood, etc.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Calvinism was around way before the NIV so you guys really need to do better. KJV supports Calvinism too, as did the Geneva Bible, the Luther Bible, the ORIGINAL BIBLE.

But Calvinism has never been in the Bible, hence the NIV attempts to force Calvinistic ideas into it by liberally translating verses rather than giving a word-for-word.

 

[reformed1689]

But Calvinism has never been in the Bible, hence the NIV attempts to force Calvinistic ideas into it by liberally translating verses rather than giving a word-for-word.

Of course it is, it's called biblical theology.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Of course it is, it's called biblical theology.

Man-made theology.

 

[reformed1689]

Man-made theology.

Nope, straight out of the pages of Scripture. I know you deny that but you would be dead wrong.

 

[theefaith]

The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, ""not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance"" (2 Pet 3:9).

All are free to choose to reject God or believe!!

And to reject after believing

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

“And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, CHOOSE this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”
Joshua 24:15

Sounds like a FREE WILL decision

CHOOSE between the God of the Bible and the devil

God won't CHOOSE for you, which is what reformed theology teaches

 

[Davy]

You realize the KJV says the same exact thing right?

And there you go straining at a gnat with that 'sin nature' phrase which is NOWHERE written in the KJV Bible. That phrase does not distinguish the following facts that Apostle Paul showed about sin...

Rom 7:18
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
KJV

Rom 7:21-23
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
KJV

"members" is Greek melos, pointing to the flesh members of one's flesh body, limbs, etc.


Modern New Testament translations try to change the Textus Receptus Greek from which earlier NT translations were used. Corrupt NT translations mostly relate to 19th century scholars Wescott and Hort which sought to do away with the Textus Receptus (per their own letters they wrote to each other).

Rom 7:18-20
18 And I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. I want to do what is right, but I can't.
19 I want to do what is good, but I don't. I don't want to do what is wrong, but I do it anyway.
20 But if I do what I don't want to do, I am not really the one doing wrong; it is sin living in me that does it.
New Living Translation

Where Apostle Paul makes a clear distinction between sin in his flesh, vs. his inner man wanting to follow God's law, the above corrupt NT version destroys that clear distinction.

 

[reformed1689]

And there you go straining at a gnat with that 'sin nature' phrase which is NOWHERE written in the KJV Bible. That phrase does not distinguish the following facts that Apostle Paul showed about sin...

Rom 7:18
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
KJV

Rom 7:21-23
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
KJV

"members" is Greek melos, pointing to the flesh members of one's flesh body, limbs, etc.


Modern New Testament translations try to change the Textus Receptus Greek from which earlier NT translations were used. Corrupt NT translations mostly relate to 19th century scholars Wescott and Hort which sought to do away with the Textus Receptus (per their own letters they wrote to each other).

Rom 7:18-20
18 And I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. I want to do what is right, but I can't.
19 I want to do what is good, but I don't. I don't want to do what is wrong, but I do it anyway.
20 But if I do what I don't want to do, I am not really the one doing wrong; it is sin living in me that does it.
New Living Translation

Where Apostle Paul makes a clear distinction between sin in his flesh, vs. his inner man wanting to follow God's law, the above corrupt NT version destroys that clear distinction.

I also don't buy the hogwash that the TR is the uncorrupted NT text and others are corrupt. That is pure junk.

 

[Davy]

I also don't buy the hogwash that the TR is the uncorrupted NT text and others are corrupt. That is pure junk.

Thus you show you side with the corrupt scholars Wescott and Hort who presented their own Greek translation that was used for modern New Testaments like NIV.

It's very clear what they were up to, which is why today many modern Bible scholars also see their treatment of the Greek NT as being full of inconsistencies and corruption. No wonder so many Bible students today get such pagan philosophical interpretations today.

 

[reformed1689]

Thus you show you side with the corrupt scholars Wescott and Hort who presented their own Greek translation that was used for modern New Testaments like NIV.

It's very clear what they were up to, which is why today many modern Bible scholars also see their treatment of the Greek NT as being full of inconsistencies and corruption. No wonder so many Bible students today get such pagan philosophical interpretations today.

Which is hogwash. Your whole point of view is a fantasy, not reality.

 

[Davy]

Which is hogwash. Your whole point of view is a fantasy, not reality.

You mean you WISH what I'm saying were not true. Sorry, but you are a victim of your own deceptions.

 

[reformed1689]

You mean you WISH what I'm saying were not true. Sorry, but you are a victim of your own deceptions.

Nope

 

[MatthewG]

Free Will is where you freely choose to make your own decisions based on all types of myriads of different situations and experiences.

 

[Davy]

Nope

Well, I gave you irrefutable evidence by comparison in Romans 7 by Apostle Paul in the Textus Receptus, but you reject it for your "sin nature" translation from corrupt Greek texts.

 

[reformed1689]

Well, I gave you irrefutable evidence by comparison in Romans 7 by Apostle Paul in the Textus Receptus, but you reject it for your "sin nature" translation from corrupt Greek texts.

Sorry I don't take anyone seriously who starts talking about corrupt texts in favor of the TR. It just means you are ignorant of textual criticism and how translations work. No need to discuss further with your ignorant position.

 

[michaelvpardo]

One of the classic arguments against election and predestination is the argument that we have free will and we all have the opportunity to come to God. But is that really true? This depends. It depends on what you mean by free will. Let’s look at what the Bible says about who will seek God.

First, let’s talk about free will. What is it? If by free will you mean every man is free to choose what he desires then, yes, I agree, there is free will. But if you mean that we have an equal choice with no influence or determiners then no, we do not have free will.

Does this align with Scripture? Yes. The proponents of free will, the humanistic definition of free will, suggest that people come to Christ on their own free will. They make this choice all by themselves. The problem is, Scripture says otherwise. Romans 3 clearly tells us that nobody seeks God.

Who Seeks God?

Jesus said whoever sins is a slave to sin. Can a slave free himself by will ?