"I Don't Want Free Will" by Martin Luther

[erowe1]

And you don't think a person can try to be good and do right through his faith?

No, that's not what I'm saying. In fact a person with saving faith will be a person who does what is good and right. But they don't do those things in order to satisfy God's righteous demands, but as the outworking of their new nature as Christians.

 

[acptulsa]

No, that's not what I'm saying. In fact a person with saving faith will be a person who does what is good and right. But they don't do those things in order to satisfy God's righteous demands, but as the outworking of their new nature as Christians.

But Paul says we cannot obey perfectly. He doesn't say with or without faith. He simply says it's impossible.

And I'll tell you something else, if you want to know. I think you're right. I think they do what is right because what is right needs to be done, more than any other reason. Furthermore, I think that those who argue that they don't need to make the effort, and then don't make the effort, and cite predestination and these words of Paul as their excuse, are the very ones Paul is talking about when he condemns people who try to get to heaven through the law instead of through faith. Even if--maybe especially if--they have way too much faith in a bad interpretation of the law. We are, after all, warned about false prophets.

I also think, just as Jesus prophesied, that SF, and Mr. Drake, and you and I will be saying the same thing on the Judgement Day: 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, sick and/or cold..?'

 

[Sola_Fide]

Talking to you is just depressing. I shudder to think...

But never mind all of that. Now, if I was predestined for this or predestined for that, and it was all decided before I was born, how am I doing any harm by trying to be worthy? Does my putting a little effort--imperfect enough to be worthless though it may be--into the thing bad? If sinning all I want makes no difference to my predestination, does attempting not to make any difference to my predestination? Or, since Paul told me I cannot succeed, does even making the effort condemn me because I didn't listen to Paul when he told me to give it up? And if so, what happened to my predestination after all?

Inquiring minds want to know.

It should be depressing. If you think anything other than that your works are useless--not just useless--but an offense to the cross of Christ, then you are in an error that will condemn your soul.

It is a very depressing thing to know that God requires absolute perfect obedience...there is no doubt about that. But this is what drives the believer to Christ in faith! The law is unyielding, but Christ gives us peace with God.

The great preacher Charles Spurgeon said that the problem with the gospel preaching (of his day) was that it didn't begin with the law. The law must be proclaimed and understood in all of its horrible ramifications before the cross of Christ will ever become as sweet as it really is to a man.

 

[acptulsa]

It should be depressing. If you think anything other than that your works are useless--not just useless--but an offense to the cross of Christ, then you are in an error that will condemn your soul.

It is a very depressing thing to know that God requires absolute perfect obedience...there is no doubt about that. But this is what drives the believer to Christ in faith! The law is unyielding, but Christ gives us peace with God.

How can an error condemn my soul, or how can I be driven anywhere, if my fate was sealed before I was born?

Once again you pronounce a thing to be heresy and then proclaim that self-defined heresy to be the truth. Yet still once again. x is heresy and x is truth. And all at the same time.

I know it's really hard to find a loophole that allows you to be as proud and vain as you want, friend. But I'm still not going to help you do it, no matter how hard you try to talk me into it.

 

[Sola_Fide]

How can an error condemn my soul,

How? I'm not quite sure how to answer that. All that I know is it does, and the first chapter of Galatians proves that.

or how can I be driven anywhere, if my fate was sealed before I was born?

Because the power that drives you to realize your sin before the law and run to Christ for righteousness comes from God Himself. Why would you second guess God's grace? Why do you feel He has not chosen you? Why do you focus on things you will never know (the hidden councils of God) and ignore the things that are right in front of you (Christ's righteousness can be imputed to you by having faith in Him)?

Once again you pronounce a thing to be heresy and then proclaim that self-defined heresy to be the truth. Yet still once again. x is heresy and x is truth. And all at the same time.

I didn't pronounce mixing works and faith as heresy, Paul did. So I have a firm foundation for condemning it as such (God's Word).

I know it's really hard to find a loophole that allows you to be as proud and vain as you want, friend. But I'm still not going to help you do it, no matter how hard you try to talk me into it.

I don't know what you're talking about here. I don't think Jesus was vain to condemn the Pharisees of their self-righteousness and I don't think Paul was vain to condemn the Judiazers for their self-righteousness. The true vanity comes from the person who believes that their works will avail before a holy God in any way. That is the very pride of self-righteousness that condemns a person.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Charles Spurgeon

A Blow At Self Righteousness

 

[acptulsa]

How? I'm not quite sure how to answer that.

That's because you're so determined to cherry-[pick you're trying to answer half a question intead of the whole question.

Because the power that drives you to realize your sin before the law and run to Christ for righteousness comes from God Himself. Why would you second guess God's grace? Why do you feel He has not chosen you? Why do you focus on things you will never know (the hidden councils of God) and ignore the things that are right in front of you (Christ's righteousness can be imputed to you by having faith in Him)?

How many questions do you have to ask in order to duck the question? Because here you have asked three, all of them assuming things about me that you do not know for facts, and still I want you to provide the answer that you are trying not to provide.

I didn't pronounce mixing works and faith as heresy, Paul did. So I have a firm foundation for condemning it as such (God's Word).

I didn't ask you about mixing works and faith. I asked you how it's possible for me to be predestined and yet still be able to confound my predestination through something I do of my own free will. And you fear to answer as surely as if you knew the devil was in your words, waiting to be exposed.

I don't know what you're talking about here.

Yet you carry on as if you do. And do you carry on when you don't know what you're talking about as well?

I don't think Jesus was vain to condemn the Pharisees of their self-righteousness and I don't think Paul was vain to condemn the Judiazers for their self-righteousness. The true vanity comes from the person who believes that their works will avail before a holy God in any way. That is the very pride of self-righteousness that condemns a person.

I don't even pretend to believe that works will prevail. All I have ever said is, if they need to be done they must be attempted. And I believe that the pride of self-righteousness that condemns a person is simply the pride of self-righteousness. You obviously don't. So be it.

 

[Sola_Fide]

How many questions do you have to ask in order to duck the question? Because here you have asked three, all of them assuming things about me that you do not know for facts, and still I want you to provide the answer that you are trying not to provide.



I didn't ask you about mixing works and faith. I asked you how it's possible for me to be predestined and yet still be able to confound my predestination through something I do of my own free will. And you fear to answer as surely as if you knew the devil was in your words, waiting to be exposed.

Hmmm. So you think that I was proposing you were doing something of your own free will?

Or don't you know that the Bible says that the power to believe comes from the Holy Spirit?

I don't even pretend to believe that works will prevail. All I have ever said is, if they need to be done they must be attempted. And I believe that the pride of self-righteousness that condemns a person is simply the pride of self-righteousness. You obviously don't. So be it.

How many verses do we have to post for you to see that your works are not only worthless, but an offense to the cross of Christ? Have you ever cracked open the book of Romans or Galatians and tried to understand them? They speak directly to the things you are saying here.

Galatians 2:21 NIV

I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

I want you to know how dreadful a thing it is you are presenting here. If we could be righteous by being obedient like you are proposing, then Christ died for nothing. This is why Paul condemns the Judaizers in the harshest of language.

 

[acptulsa]

I want you to know how dreadful a thing it is you are presenting here.

I do know how dreadful you consider the passage of Matthew I asked you to address pages and pages ago to be. I can tell by the fact that, though they are the words of Jesus, you refuse to even consider them.

Good luck with that.

Your misinterpretations of the epistles have been ripped to shreds. Matthew 25 you don't even attempt to twist...

 

[Sola_Fide]

I do know how dreadful you consider the passage of Matthew I asked you to address pages and pages ago to be. I can tell by the fact that, though they are the words of Jesus, you refuse to even consider them.

Good luck with that.

And pages and pages ago I said that you can read the obedience passages as

1. Prescriptions, what we are to do to be saved

Or

2. Descriptions, of what a saved person does


The obedience passages like the ones you cite are descriptions, not prescriptions. They are descriptions of how a Christian person will behave, not prescriptions of what a person does to be saved.

 

[acptulsa]

And pages and pages ago I said that you can read the obedience passages as

1. Prescriptions, what we are to do to be saved

Or

2. Descriptions, of what a saved person does


The obedience passages like the ones you cite are descriptions, not prescriptions. They are descriptions of how a Christian person will behave, not prescriptions of what a person does to be saved.

Yet you say that good works are an affront to God. So, how a Christian person will naturally behave is an affront to God.

You can't have it both ways.

So, perhaps I should presume that what you were trying but failing to say all this time is that doing a good work and then telling God later that it should be a ticket into heaven is an affront to God. Well, I don't know if that's what you're trying to say or not, but I agree with the sentiment. And I never once said differently. So I don't know what the forty page argument is about.

You say a person is predestined because God doesn't favor everyone with the ability to appreciate His grace. Perhaps. I don't say yes, and I don't say no, because I would have to be omniscient to know this for certain about all my fellow humans, and lacking that, would consider myself arrogant to make a pronouncement one way or the other. But you do, then say that those who can appreciate it do choose it, but not of their own free will, but can blow the deal of their own free will even though we don't have free will. Furthermore, you say trying to obey the Law is an affront to God, but Christians should consider grace a legal contract. And then you try to tie all of this back to free will, and act like my belief in free will is an attempt to throw the Law in God's face when it isn't, and your legal contract isn't an attempt to throw the Law in God's face when it sure looks like one to me.

And then you wonder why several of us laugh at you. Well, friend, a person who has tied himself up in knots is simply a funny sight.

You seem to think that our time on this Earth getting our hard knocks does nothing to prepare us for the Kingdom, but is simply a waste of time. You also seem to think God is less like the man who attracts a wife by being worthy of love, and more like the man who buys himself a wife. You seem threatened by the possibility that God doesn't micromanage everything, even more threatened by the possibility that we could give Him a mild surprise (though anyOne who has to survive for an eternity certainly deserves as much), and even more threatened by the possibility that we might have to work at preparing ourselves for the Kingdom.

But I can tell you this with a certainty: According to Jesus, believing in free will is neither a prerequisite to be a sheep or a goat.

Well, I am too. But I can deal with it. Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'll just go deal with it now. Later.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Yet you say that good works are an affront to God. So, how a Christian person will naturally behave is an affront to God.

You can't have it both ways.

So, perhaps I should presume that what you were trying but failing to say all this time is that doing a good work and then telling God later that it should be a ticket into heaven is an affront to God. Well, I don't know if that's what you're trying to say or not, but I agree with the sentiment. And I never once said differently. So I don't know what the forty page argument is about.

I think the confusion comes from within your own mind. If what I've said and what I've quoted about how our obedience does not justify us before God has not sunk in yet, you may just need to go back through my posts and the passages I've quoted. Did you watch the Spurgeon YouTube I posted?

You say a person is predestined because God doesn't favor everyone with the ability to appreciate His grace. Perhaps. I don't say yes, and I don't say no, because I would have to be omniscient to know this for certain about all my fellow humans, and lacking that, would consider myself arrogant to make a pronouncement one way or the other.

Omniscience is not needed, and the knowledge of other people's salvation is not needed. The Word of God teaches it, so it is enough that He has revealed it to man in His Word. Far from arrogance, it is proper to believe it and teach it, because it is truth.

But you do, then say that those who can appreciate it do choose it, but not of their own free will, but can blow the deal of their own free will even though we don't have free will.

Who knows what this is supposed to mean? Is it possible that you are confused about what I'm presenting?

Furthermore, you say trying to obey the Law is an affront to God, but Christians should consider grace a legal contract. And then you try to tie all of this back to free will, and act like my belief in free will is an attempt to throw the Law in God's face when it isn't, and your legal contract isn't an attempt to throw the Law in God's face when it sure looks like one to me.

First, you are confusing all kinds of concepts. Free will/election is a seperate issue than law/gospel.

Second. The law is good. Not only is it good to follow the law, every person is commanded to follow the law perfectly. The law is holy, righteous, and good. It is because of human weakness that the law condemns us to death.. Do you see the distinction better now? It is because we are dead in sin that we condemn ourselves when we attempt to justify ourselves before God based on our obedience.

And then you wonder why several of us laugh at you. Well, friend, a person who has tied himself up in knots is simply a funny sight.

Instead of laughing, wouldnt it be better to understand the law/gospel distinction that Paul talks about so that you can follow along in the conversation?

You seem to think that our time on this Earth getting our hard knocks does nothing to prepare us for the Kingdom, but is simply a waste of time.

Waste of time? No. There is a purpose for every suffering in history. But as far as salvation, there is no number of knocks that you could ever go through to pay for your sin. There is no work you can perform and suffering you could undergo that would "get you in".

You also seem to think God is less like the man who attracts a wife by being worthy of love, and more like the man who buys himself a wife.

Yes. God is most certainly like the man who purchases His bride. God has purchased a bride, paid for by the blood of His very Son....a bride who is a slut, tramp, murderer, two-faced, diseased, liar, theif, adulterer. God purchased a bride that could never be "worthy" of love.

You seem threatened by the possibility that God doesn't micromanage everything, even more threatened by the possibility that we could give Him a mild surprise (though anyOne who has to survive for an eternity certainly deserves as much), and even more threatened by the possibility that we might have to work at preparing ourselves for the Kingdom.

A God who is "surprised" by something is not worthy of worship. A God who is not able to bring His purposes to pass is not worthy of worship. The god that you are proposing is not the God of the Bible and not worthy of worship.

But I can tell you this with a certainty: According to Jesus, believing in free will is neither a prerequisite to be a sheep or a goat.

I don't know why you'd be so certain of that. Why did Jesus explicitly teach the doctrines of grace if He didn't want you to believe them?

 

[Sola_Fide]

And you don't think a person can try to be good and do right through his faith?

No. Emphatically, no. There is no one good and no man can do good. No man can will any spiritual good whatsoever.

 

[Theocrat]

God Calls Some People "Righteous"

No. Emphatically, no. There is no one good and no man can do good. No man can will any spiritual good whatsoever.

When the Bible speaks of "the righteous," to whom is that referring?

 

[Sola_Fide]

When the Bible speaks of "the righteous," to whom is that referring?

Blessed is he to whom God imputes righteousness, and doesn't impute sin:

Romans 4:3-8 NIV

What does Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are those
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered. Blessed is the one
whose sin the Lord will never count against them."

Our righteous Fathers in the faith had an alien righteousness, imputed to them apart from works. I believe the Westminster Confession got it right.

 

[robert68]

Robert...let's think about this. If God is sending me a delusion, then that means that God DOES send delusions. If God does send delusions, then my position is established (that God sends delusions).

Beside the logic of it, there are the Scriptural examples, which are what we should be going to. Erowe1 posted some great ones.

That doesn’t apply to anything else you say. By your logic “God” could be deluding you to believe in predeterminism.

 

[robert68]

If you consider the spiritual realm to conform to the truth, then doesn't that mean that you should believe that it conforms to the truth that everything that happens is determined by the state of things that preceded it? I'm struggling to understand a concept of the spiritual realm that has decisions happening in minds without cause.

You say that yet you believe “God” makes decisions without cause. In any case, it’s beside the point I’ve been making, which deals with the concept of “sin”. “Sin” is impossible with predeterminism, for the reasons I’ve already shown.

 

[robert68]

So, are you saying that Paul is not an apostle or Paul's words were not inspired by God? It sounds like you are saying that Paul is asserting contradictory things here, and that is very heavy charge.

Obviously, since God is truth, and Paul is conveying inspired words, he would not say something contradictory like the square circle thing. But the entire point is that predestination is not contradictory, and here Paul explains that the Potter has the sovereign right over his pots to make some for noble use and some for common use.

Give a case where something a person created sinned against that person(s).

You're going to have to explain how you think this "contradicts the concept of a creator".

Give a case where something a person created sinned against that person.

 

[erowe1]

You say that yet you believe “God” makes decisions without cause.

Where did I say that God makes decisions without cause?

In any case, it’s beside the point I’ve been making, which deals with the concept of “sin”. “Sin” is impossible with predeterminism, for the reasons I’ve already shown.

That's because you trucked that conclusion in by using a concept of sin that precludes determinism.

 

[erowe1]

Give a case where something a person created sinned against that person.

It would have to be a case where the thing created was a moral agent. Aside from God, who has ever created moral agents?