The Totality of a Man's Experience Makes Him Who He Is

 The will is first and original; knowledge is merely added to it as an instrument belonging to the phenomenon of the will. Therefore every man is what he is through his will, and his character is original, for willing is the basis of his inner being. Through the knowledge added to it, he gets to know in the course of experience what he is; in other words, he becomes acquainted with his character. Therefore he knows himself in consequence of, and in accordance with, the nature of his will, instead of willing in consequence of, and according to, his knowing, as in the old view." - Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, Page 292 and 293

One of the problems with some of the rationalist philosophers is that they often become combatibilist.

Arthur here is teaching that our being is the will. We are who we are in eternity past. When we enter this life which is time and space, we go through life in successions. Thus as we learn more and more we get to know ourselves. Thus who we are and what we chose in eternity past becomes clear to us as time goes on.

It is similar to Leibniz thoughts.

G.W. Leibniz says, "Since this is so, we can say that the nature of an individual substance or of a complete being is to have a notion so complete that it is sufficient to contain and to allow us to deduce from it all the predicates of the subject to which this notion is attributed. An accident, on th other hand, is a being whose notion does not include everything that can be attributed to the subject to which the notion is attributed. Thus, taken in abstraction from the subject, the quality of being a king which belongs to Alexander the Great is not determinate enough to constitute an individual and does not include the other qualities of the same subject, not does it include everything that the notion of this prince includes. On the other hand, God, seeing Alexander's individual notion or haecceity, sees in it at the same time the basis and reason for all the predicates which can be said truly of him, for example, that he vanquished Darius and Porus; he even knows a priori (and not by experience) whether he died a natural death or whether he was poisoned, something we can know only through history. Thus when we consider carefully the connection of things, we can say that from all time in Alexander's soul there are vestiges of everything that has happened to him and marks of everything that will happen to him and even traces of everything that happens in the universe, even though God alone could recognize them all." - Discourse on Metaphysics, Page 8

In other words some qualifiers can be given to several different people. Such as King can be given to Alexander and David. However, what makes up Alexander is the sum total of his parts.

Against Free Will

Clark writes in his commentary Philippians 2:13 against the notion of free will.

He says, "The two kai's contribute an emphasis. 'Both . . . and' is stronger than 'and' alone. The idea is that God not only gives us physical strength to engage in Christian activity, but he first controls our will so that as a result of his control we decide or will to do our duty. It is strange, it is incomprehensible, that some commentators use this verse to attack Calvinism: 'the Cavlinistic writers are exceedingly embarrassed with it.' The gentleman mentions Doddridge, though how the verse can embarrass Calvinists remains unexplained. The verse is among the strongest supports for Calvinism. Nobody, at least I do not see how anybody, could miss the statement that God controls a man's will as well as his actions. Ellicott notes, 'the thelein no less than the energein is a direct result of the divine energeia' (64, col. 2). This is correct, even though Ellicott then tries to avoid the full force of his own words.
The idea that man has free will, an idea sponsored by Pelagius, adapted by the Council of Trent, and emphasized by Arminius and Wesley, is totally inconsistent with the Biblical plan of salvation. It is also inconsistent with the sovereignty of God, with divine omniscience and omnipotence, with the necessity of regeneration by the Holy Spirit, and of course with the pervasive Scriptural teaching of predestination." - Gordon H. Clark, Philippians, Pg. 71 - 72


Notice that Clark states that God controls our wills. Those who teach that Man has a free will teach that God does not control Mans wills. Compatibilist teach that Man has free will and still claim that God is sovereign. However, to teach this is to disregard and to contradict what Scripture teaches. The Bible says that God controls the will and actions of man. There is no mystery as to how these things are done. Man has a will, a choice, a volition, but his will, choice, volition is not free from the controlling hand of God.


Further those who teach compatibilism also want to say that free will and sovereignty are compatible to one another. How they can say such things is beyond me to understand. Many of todays 'calvinist' rather than revealing what the word of God teaches seem to want to make the word of God of no known affect by teaching mystery. It is a mystery. The question is does the Bible teach that man has a will free from God's control? No. It states everywhere that man is dependent upon God in life, and in salvation. We do what he so pleases for us to do.

The Free Offer entails Free Will

"Acceptance of the Gospel is a piece of the Gospel wrought in the soul by Jehovah the Spirit, which your tenderers of Salvation, either overlook or deny. Neither can offers be a fit means calculated to justify God, in condemning men for refusing a doctrine which was never preached to them; but rather offers justify God in condemning a minister, who, instead of preaching to conscience, offers his proposals, and leaves his messages at a great distance off-hand, as seems good to the profferer to fix them in mid-way, and wait for the sinner's acceptance. Offers lay all down for acceptance at mid-way block, and never get further. Whatever it be that is offered, Doctrine or Salvation, before the elect, or before the non-elect, or before all promiscuously, there it sticks in mid-way, waiting for a motion from man's free-will to accept. This is in no ways preaching the Gospel to Sinners!" - Joseph Hussey, God's Operations of Grace, pg. 43

The free offer entails free will. It ultimately leads to the errors of alter calls which Finney made popular.


David J. Engelsma also says in Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel, "The only alternative to the truth of sovereign grace is the teaching that salvation depends upon the free will of the sinner. This is another aspect of the theory of the offer to which a Reformed man objects. We appreciate the fact that in the past defenders of the offer within the Reformed sphere have vehemently repudiated free will, despite the inconsistency of their repudiation with the doctrine of the offer itself. Nevertheless, the teaching of free will is necessarily implied in the doctrine of the offer and can be repudiated only by repudiating the offer." - Pg. 48

Jesuits Theology or Counter-Reformation

There are some who are positing that Molinism would not be against what Gordon H. Clark taught. These men teach that Gordon H. Clark and Molinism both taught that the free will of man and God's sovereignty are both compatible.

First of all, what Clark taught was not compatiblism. But rather what Clark taught was hard determinism. Clark did not hold to the irrational view that man has free will and yet God is sovereign at the same time. Second,  Molinism teaches that God's knowledge is so vast that he really doesn't know anything. It is satanism at its worst. Compatibilism is nothing but irratiinalism. Third, Molinism is nothing short of the Jesuits counter reformation. Clark attacks and repudiates this heretical error in his book "Predestination".


Gordon H. Clark says, "The Bible contradicts the notion of free will that is acceptance by professing Christians can be explained only by the continuing ravages of sin blinding the minds of men. To some this sounds like an extreme statement. But the appeal is to the Bible, and the Bible says that the heart of man is deceitful above measure. It will use all possible devices to avoid acknowledging that it is a worm, a lump of clay, a creature, and not an independent, autonomous being." - Predestination, Pg. 81

Knowledge of Good and Evil

The Bible speaks of knowledge of good and evil. For instance, in Genesis 2:17, God forbids the eating of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In Genesis 3:22, God says that man, after having disobeyed the command not to eat from the tree, has become "as one of us, to know good and evil". Elsewhere, in Isaiah 7:16, the Bible speaks of a boy before he is able to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that you abhor shall be desolate of both her kings.

The Arminian or free willer will speak of this as proof that free will does exist and that man has the ability to choose without coercion from God or something else between good and evil. But, is this conclusion necessarily so? After reading the Bible from Genesis to Revelation the concept of free will is not ever found. So if this is so, then the Arminian reasoning is false. So the question is what does it therefore mean for the Bible to speak of having a knowledge of good and evil?

The problem today in reading Scripture or talking to others about Scripture is that many read the Bible through a lense. Of course, we all have lenses or glasses. The issue is not that we ought not to read the Bible without lenses, but we ought not to bring lenses from outside the text of Scripture and reading those concepts back into scripture. Yes, interpretation of scripture often deals with logical deduction; but the only logical deduction that is founded upon Scripture is that which is followed from the text of Scripture. The Bible no where says man has free will nor allures to the point of such.

So the question is what does it therefore mean for the Bible to speak of having a knowledge of both good and evil? To put simply, we often say that a man has a knowledge of a thing after adequate study of it. This is philosophy 101. I cannot work on trucks or cars because I am not well versed in such things. Likewise, to have a knowledge of both good and evil is simply to know both good and evil. To know good and to know evil. Man from the garden has become evil, able to commit evil. Likewise, the Bible in Isaiah 7 does not say that man is not sinful from birth but rather that he is not able to rightly be able to distinguish between the two points proficiently. Christ grew in wisdom of the truth. He did so without sin. As he grew, he became more and more proficient to distinguish between good and evil without sin. Likewise, when Adam and Eve sinned in the garden they became sinners knowing evil. God, knows how to distinguish the good from the evil because He is God and the law is contingent upon what he deems is right and wrong. The Bible even speaks of those who are not able to distinguish between the two (these are not infants either).

Free Will is a doctrine that is not grounded from Scripture

"Aristotle saith [or says], give a man a law and he hath [or has] power of himself to do or fulfil the law and becometh righteous with working righteously. But Paul and all the scripture saith, that the law doeth but utter sin and helpeth not." - William Tyndale, The Obedience of a Christian Man, pg. 21

Reading the Bible through its entirety one can see that the diabolical doctrine of free will is not found. Free Will is not a topic remotely close to any of the propositions of the Bible. In all instances, the Bible says that man is enslave to sin and God determines all things. Just by these two assertions free will radically oppose. We must read the Bible without any of the man made lenses of today.

Arminians deny the Gospel

Neither let any deceive your wisdoms, by affirming that they are differences of an inferior nature that are at this day agitated between the Arminians and the orthodox divines of the reformed church. Be pleased but to cast an eye on the following instances, and you will find them hewing at the very root of Christianity. Consider seriously their denying of that fundamental article of original sin. Is this but a small escape in theology? - why, what need of the gospel, what need of Christ himself, if our nature be nor guilty, depraved, corrupted? Neither are many of the rest of less importance. Surely these are not things, as Austin speaks, - "about which we may differ without loss of peace or charity." One church cannot wrap in her communion Austin and Pelagius, Calvin and Arminius. I have here only given you a taste, whereby you may judge of the rest of their fruit, "mors in olla, mors in olla;" their doctrine of the final apostasy of the elect, of true believers, of a wavering hesitancy concerning our present grace and future glory, with divers others, I have wholly omitted: those I have produced are enough to make their abettors incapable of our church-communion. - John Owen, The Epistle Dedicatory in A Display of Arminianism, pg. 7

Free Will the doctrines of demons as taught by Aliester Crowley and Van Til

Aleister Crowley and Cornelius Van Til:
“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”
by
Monty L. Collier
Satanism, and I do mean the religion of Satan, teaches that the will of man is independent from God. Satanism teaches that man has free-will. Satanism teaches that man should do whatever he wants, rather than what the Bible alone says. The inescapable implication of this teaching of Satanism is man himself is God.
Satanism teaches that man should not believe in God, but rather, man should believe in himself. This evil is sometimes called humanism. The person who does not believe in God, but trusts in himself, is echoing Protagoras’ ancient maxim: man is the measure of all things. This satanic notion is the ideological father of the many different forms of pragmatism, which all sing the praises of phenomenological relativism.
A more recent rendering of Protagoras’ ancient maxim can be found in the teachings of Satanist Aleister Crowley, who taught the following: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Crowley’s maxim permeates Hollywood and the music industry like a bad rash. The messages of Hollywood movies and popular music are anything but Biblical, and each year these evil messages grow incrementally worse. Not surprisingly, T-shirts depicting popular rappers and actors can be found advertising the satanic slogan “Do what thou wilt.”
Not only does Satan control the media, but Satan also controls most of the so-called Christian organizations, too. For example, satanic teachings have been part of the curriculum at Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia for decades. Enter the teachings of Cornelius Van Til. The teachings of Van Til dominate Westminster Seminary and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, but they also influence quite a few other Presbyterian denominations. Although slightly disguised, Cornelius Van Til also taught Alister Crowley’s Satanic doctrine (Do what thou wilt) in a series of published statements. Check out the following quotes from Van Til:
“Now since God is not fully comprehensible to us we are bound to come into what seems to be contradiction in all our knowledge. Our knowledge is analogical and therefore must be paradoxical.”
(The Defense of the Faith, page 44)
Of course, the Bible never says all human knowledge is paradoxical, nor does any Reformed confession, but heretics disregard such things. In another work, Van Til denied there was any difference between an actual contradiction and an apparent contradiction (paradox). Van Til writes:
“Shall we then follow Karl Barth in saying that contradictions in Scripture do not matter in the least because what the gospel is really all about takes place in a real ‘above’ ordinary history? Or shall we with Gordon Clark say that the ‘contradiction’ that we think we ‘see’ is no real contradiction at all? We cannot follow any of these ways.”
(Toward a Reformed Apologetics, page 4)
In yet another work, Van Til explains why his followers do not and should not attempt to reconcile any paradoxes they might find in the Bible. He writes:
“It is precisely because they are concerned to defend the Christian doctrine of revelation as basic to all intelligible human predication that they refuse to make any attempt at “stating clearly” any Christian doctrine, or the relation of any one Christian doctrine to any other Christian doctrine. They will not attempt to “solve” the “paradoxes” Involved in the relationship of the self-contained God to his dependent creatures.”
(An Introduction to Systematic Theology, chapter 13, page 172)
For Van Til, the Bible is filled with irreconcilable paradoxes, and so he thinks none of his followers should even bother to teach clearly. Van Til’s satanic teaching (the Bible is full of contradictions) is ferociously opposed by Martin Luther. Consider what Luther wrote:
“Nevertheless, it is impossible for Scripture to contradict itself except at the hands of senseless and stubborn hypocrites.”
(Luther’s Works, Volume 26, page 295)
John Calvin was Luther’s greatest student. Calvin completely rejected the heresy of Van Tilianism. Calvin constantly labored to show the logical consistency of Scripture, by publishing entire harmonies of Scripture. Unlike Van Til, Calvin believed that Christians should make every effort to teach clearly. When it came to paradox, which Roman Catholics have always passionately embraced, John Calvin stated:
“I abhor paradox.”
(John Calvin: Tracts & Letters, Volume 3, page 149)
Even so, few people today read Martin Luther and John Calvin. This is one reason men like Van Til can infiltrate Presbyterian seminaries and dispense their poison so easily. The Bible says:
“For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.”
(Jude, verse 4)
Once a person comes to believe Van Til’s teaching (all human knowledge is hopelessly self-contradicting), then it doesn’t matter what one believes or does—for, according to Van Til, there is no truth—THERE IS NO KNOWLEDGE! So, when it is all said and done, Van Til’s response to Francis Schaeffer’s profound question “How should we then live?” is: Do what thou wilt shalt be the whole of the Law! Cornelius Van Til was teaching Satanism.
I thank God for His Word, which completely contradicts the satanic teachings of men like Van Til and Crowely. Although these Satanists did not believe in truth or knowledge, the Holy Scripture states:
“The Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed”
(1 Samuel 2:3)
“He (God) that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know?”
(Psalms 94:10, emphasis mine)
“His (God’s) truth endureth to all generations”
(Psalms 100:5, emphasis mine)
Satanic principles, whether from Aleister Crowley or Cornelius Van Til, assert a disregard, not only for Holy Scripture in particular, but for all people in general. These hellish teachings breed psychopaths, who operate on the old Jesuit maxim: the end justifies the means. Of course, none of this is coincidental, and this is why Satanism leads directly to Roman Catholicism.
To conclude, when we Calvinists say the pope is Antichrist, we are testifying that the Roman Catholic Church is Satan’s church.
Let us never forget:
The Bible alone is the Word of God!

What is the difference?

That is objectionable in the free offer of the gospel, or well-meant gospel offer, is not the teaching that the church must preach the gospel to everyone and must call all hearers to faith in Jesus Christ. But the error of the doctrine of the offer, and the reason a Reformed man must repudiate it, is its teaching that the grace of God in Jesus Christ, grace that is saving in character, is directed to all men in the preaching of the gospel. Inherent in the offer of the gospel is the notion that God loves and desires to save all men; the notion that the preaching of the gospel is God's grace to all men, an expression of God's love to all men, and an attempt by God to save all men; and the notion that salvation is dependent upon man's acceptance of the offered salvation, that is, that salvation depends upon the free will of the sinner. - David J. Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism and the call of the Gospel

Determinism

"There are some Christians, even some who have been raised in Presbyterian homes and churches, who dislike the idea of determinism. These people, to varying degrees, have been infected with the Arminian notion of a free will, a will independent of God. But the Confession is not afraid of determinism. Note carefully that the effectual or effective call occurs by God's 'renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus powerful than any alleged physical determinism. the sinner comes 'freely,' i.e. voluntarily, not in spite of but because of the fact that God controlled his will and made him willing.
The reason it is so necessary to insist on divine determinism and to rebut any doctrine of a will free and independent of god's causative power is that man since the fall is dead in sin, cannot will to accept Christ, and is wholly dependent on grace. Thus section ii not only ties in with section I, but also depends on chapter VI." - Gordon H. Clark, What Do Presbyterians Believe?

The Bible does not teach Free Will

"The question therefore is, Does the Bible teach the freedom of the will? By freedom of the will is meant what most ordinary people mean: the absence of any controlling power, even God and his grace, and therefore the equal ability in any situation to choose either of two incompatible courses of action. There are some semi-Calvinists who, presumably through fear, assert the freedom of the will, and then more or less disguise the fact that they define freedom of the will in a way most people would never guess. In a similar situation the seventeenth-century French philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal, in his Provincial Letters, excoriates the Dominicans for using Jesuit terms with Jansenist meanings. The Jesuits were too powerful; they were about to crush the Jensenists; and the Dominicans were afraid. Pascal makes the point that Jesuit terms will convey Jesuit meanings to the populace, and hence the Dominican theology, in thought similar to Jansenism, will be defeated by the terms it uses. So too, semi-Calvinists who use Arminian terms support Arminianism, for the populace will never discover their esoteric definitions. Freedom of the will, almost universally, means that God does not determine a man's choice. It means that the will is uncaused, not predetermined. The present book uses free will in its ordinary, commonly accepted sense. The question is: Does the Bible teach freedom of the will?
It is so obvious that the Bible contradicts the notion of free will that its acceptance by professing Christians can be explained only by the continuing ravages of sin blinding the minds of men. To some this sounds like an extreme statement. But the appeal is to the Bible, and the Bible says that the heart of man is deceitful above measure. It will use all possible devices to avoid acknowledging that it is a worm, a lump of clay, a creature, and not an independent, autonomous being. The appeal is to the Bible." - Gordon H. Clark, Predestination

Free Will found in Scripture? No.

"The matter of 'free-will offerings' is easily disposed of. There are several other Old Testament verses that use this phrase. But they have nothing to do with theory of free will. The Hebrew term for 'free will,' as an English word, means abundantly, spontaneously, voluntarily. It contrasts with the offerings that are prescribed by law, and which therefore are not spontaneous, nor even abundant. The question as to whether or not God controls the decision is entirely absent. So too in [Ezra] 7:13 the same Hebrew word is used the English term 'free will,' we would not be greatly impressed by his theology, Artaxerxes simply meant that if any Jew wanted to return to Jerusalem, he was free to go - free from royal restrictions. But Ezra, to indicate the inspired view of the matter, adds in 7:27, 28, 'Blessed be the Lord . . . who has put such a thing as this in the king's heart . . . and has extended mercy unto me before the king.' Ezra does not reflect on God's moving some Jews to return to Jerusalem, but he is very clear that God controlled Artaxerxes." - Gordon H. Clark, Predestination

Calvin on Free Will

"What remains now for free-will, if all the good works which proceed from us are acknowledged to have been the gifts of the Spirit of God? Let godly readers weigh carefully the apostle's words. He does not say that we are assisted by God. He does not say that the will is prepared, and is then left to run by its own strength. He does not say that the power of choosing aright is bestowed upon us, and that we are afterwards left to make our own choice. such is the idle talk in which those persons who do their utmost to undervalue the grace of God are accustomed to indulge." - John Calvin from Ephesians 2:10

On God's purpose in commands on ethical beings.

"unless you also clarify that the only way He could do that and still be just is if man were not made in the Image of God, which is the reason it is sin in the first place. God is not bound by His commands per se, as I said above. However, every command has a reasoned causal chain that goes back to God’s character and desires, and these are essential to Him as primal manifestation/expression/revelation of Himself both to Himself and to conditional creatures."It is because Man is made in the image of God that they are responsible to Him. God could have commanded anything - with that said His laws are said to be just, holy, and good because God commands them. However, God is not bound by those laws. Even if man obeyed the law of God completely (scripture says in Romans 3 and 10 that it is impossible due to His depravity and fallen nature) he would still be doing that which was his job as a creature. Luke says that they would be unprofitable servants because they did what they were told and what they were responsible for. All men are responsible to God because of the fact that they are creatures of God made in the image of God. This is why I say you should not imply from this that all of God's creatures deserve salvation. Salvation is a free gift of God and not something that is to be inferred on the creature.

Gordon H. Clark says, "In Christianity . . . God is supreme, and any ideas that may be required are dependent upon what God wills to think. God is the legislator, and piety is determined by his preceptive decree." - Religion, Reason and Revelation Indeed to say that God must honor his law is to subject him to a law above him. Clark also says elsewhere "Responsiblility presupposes a superior authority that rewards and punishes. The highest authority is God. Therefore responsibility is ultimately dependent on the power and authority of God. Is it just then for God to punish a man for deeds that God himself 'determined before to be done'? Was God just in punishing Judas, Herod, Pontius Pilate, and the others? The Scriptures answer in the affirmative and explain why. Not only is God the creator of the physical universe, not only is he the governor and judge of men, he is also the moral legislator. It is his will that establishes the distinction between right and wrong, between justice and injustice; it is his will that sets the norms of righteous conduct." From this I inferr that man is responsible to God because He is created in His image. One may also say that Paul says this in Romans 9 when he says that God is the potter we are the clay. The potter has supreme rights.

On Salvation, Christian Living, and Holy Spirit

My thought is that we cannot truly understand the Holy Spirit's work in the Christian life without first understanding what is the salvation of the Christian. A.W. Pink talks about the work of the Holy Spirit and that essentially if we could somehow do it all by ourselves as if all we needed to do is to believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ and have our faith rest in Him in order to escape hell and to go to heaven then there is really no need of the Spirit (Pg. 45 in the baker edition of the Holy Spirit). I would also add that if all we needed is just a little push or prodding then there would still be no need of the Holy Spirit.
Christ did not die to save us from Hell, although that is not void from the gospel. However He died that we by faith may attain to His nature which is wrought in us by the Power of the Holy Spirit. Has Pink says, "If the salvation which He has provided is a deliverance from sin and self-pleasing, from worldliness and indulging the lust of the flesh, and the bestowing of a nature which desires and determines to live for God's glory and please Him in all the details of our present lives - then it is clear beyond dispute that none but the Spirit of God can impart a genuine desire for such a salvation." Again this alludes to the question what is true freedom? Is freedom a thing that says I can choose between two choices without any external pursausions (spelling?) or is freedom that scripture speaks of a freedom from the bondage of sin. Well if we say freedom is that I might choose between two equally uncoerced choices - then the question is is God free? I would argue no. However scripture does not state that is what true free-will (freedom) is. (Romans 5) Because Adam sinned all of his posterity(spelling) have been plunged into death and are now born naturally totally depraved (Psalm 51:5, 58:3). Jesus says that if you sin then you are a slave to sin. Romans 3 says that all men are hate God (paraphrased). Essentially the idea is that there is something wrong with our nature with our total being. In in Romans 5 we see the two covanental ideas that in Adam all die but in Christ recieved by grace through faith all are made righteous and are given life. So my point is that true freedom is not having the ability to choose between two choices but is freedom from the bondage of sin from a life that hates God and wants nothing to do with God to a life that loves God and longs to do His good work (Philippians 2:12-13). And by this we need the Holy Spirit to do. If we did not then it would be useless for us to say that the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer is  necessary.
I think Herman Hoeksema says this very well in his work "The Wonder of Grace." He says, "Saved by grace! Delivered from wrath, guilt, damnation, corruption, and death - all by grace! Clothed with righteousness, holiness, life, and glory - by grace only! Translated into light, from death into life, from shame into glory, from hell into heaven - all by the power of God's wondrous grace! And all because of the eternal, sovereign love of Him Who chose the things that are not to bring to nought the things that are; that no flesh should glory in His presence!" (Pg. 15)

Free Will or Bondage?

First Question: whether or not people have free will? Scripture is clear on the issue. Most if not all would argue that free will is a given state given to men for the power to choose over good and evil. However, scripture doesn't state that is what free will is.

Question to the first question: So it depends on how it is defined? Jonathan Edwards wrote a great book called "Freedom of the Will" (which is a shortened title) that I would highly recommend.

Answer: If given the freedom to choose, it doesn't necessarily negate that one will choose what is good. John 3:16-18.- and given our current state, by which all of humanity has fallen, it does not follow that we can do anything that is good. Romans 8 depicts.- Scripture however is clear that men and women are under the bondage of sin - gen 3, romans 1-3;5, Eph. 2- and that the only way out of that bondage is found in Christ alone, by grace and faith alone. gen 15, all of Romans, Eph. 2, Gal. 2-3.

Question: So you would say man does not have free will? Or would you define it differently than libertarian free will?

Answer: does man have the power to choose or does he have free will - no

Another users Comment: My comment is that it doesn't matter. From the end user (us), we feel like we have free will, but we know that God's will will be done. So, there's really no difference.

Reply: I would say it does matter, because the approach to dealing with people's understanding and our need for God changes. Also, I think it should make us more humble and see God's power, love, mercy, and glory more vibrantly.