Gary McNees wrote:

I've been pondering this post for a while (and I got busy
travelling to math conferences during the break.)  When
it comes down to brass tacks, I think it's most expedient
if I pare down my response to just:


> I don't know of anyone who believes that they can
> choose whether to WANT something. 

Which is to be contrasted with:


> Here I agree. But one CAN choose to want to want to love
> God. 

in which you directly contradict yourself.




>> > I don't agree at all. The convicted criminal can choose
>> > to want a pardon.
>>
>> Since the odds are that he won't get a pardon, why doesn't
>> he do the much wiser thing and choose to NOT want a pardon.
> 
> Well, this IS the point isn't it. Most don't believe that God CAN
> OFFER a pardon, do they? But since ALL are taught by God,
> those who listen and learn do come to Him.
> 
>> That way, he'll be happier since he's getting what he
>> wants.  I don't think your example does what you wanted it
>> to do.  The con has no choice but to want a pardon.
> 
> But there is a "slight" difference. Whether one actually believes
> a pardon is available. 

I don't see that this makes a difference.  I want several
things which I am convinced are completely impossible.
(E.g., One of my main desires is precluded by 1. my
wife's permission and 2.  that the particular young ladies
I've chosen for my harem would be amenable to the plan.)

Just like the convict, I'd be much happier if I'd just
decide to change what I want.  


> Thus, many here, youself included, deny OSAS because you
> deny that the pardon is eternal. Whereas, the pardon is eternal,
> since what is offered is not life but eternal life.

1.  I'm pretty sure I've never denied OSAS.  

2.  If I were to argue against it, I would not use
the argument that the pardon is not eternal.  Rather,
I believe the pardon is, in fact, eternal, and won
for every man by Christ.  The difference between the
saved and unsaved is that the pardon has been _applied_
to the saved.


> I agree that using YOUR definition of "free will,"
> that it does not exist. I cannot will not to want.
> But I can will to want to not want. 

If you can will to want to not want. Or will to want
to want, then you are willing to want _something_.

All you have done here is to create a meritorious
work.  "Oh, I'm soooo humble, and Jesus is sooooo
great.  He knows that I am to weak to obey the
law, so He accepts that I merely _want_ to obey
the law and grants me salvation based on that.
Oh, but I'm so weak that I can't even want to
obey the law, so in His greatness, He accepts
my mere wanting to want to obey the law, and thereby
I am saved."

Oh yeah?  Well I'm even more humble, and acknowledge
that I can't even want to want to want to obey, and
I assign Jesus even more greatness than you, because
He accept my (want-to)^3 as sufficient for salvation.

See how my humility tops yours?  I astound even myself
at my own humility.

It doesn't matter if I want to want to want to want to...
.............want to love God.  It is still a work and
it can not be meritorious unto salvation.  Further, it's
still an act of will, and you can't formulate this is
such a way as to make the initial wanting not a free
choice, without usurping Jesus as that Author of our
faith.




>> > We all can choose to want salvation.
>> > And that is all we need. God does the rest.
>>
>> This is exactly the point of contention.  If "God
>> does the rest", then 1. we have to do some work
>> and 2. We have to act _first_ before God does.
>> Both of these conclusion contradict plain Scripture.
> 
> No, work is not invalid for all things. It is invalid
> for salvation. God alone saves. But God also
> teaches all men. But a man cannot believe what
> he does not know and understand. He must learn
> first. Hence faith comes by hearing the word of God.

Because hearing God's Word changes our wants.  In no
wise do we change our wants by our own reason or
strength.


> We CAN want to want. We can want to lose weight,
> even if we don't have the will power to do so.

If someone begins wanting to lose weight, they
did not begin this wanting in a vacuum.  Something
prompted it.  They didn't just say "I think today
I'll being wanting to lose weight."  Rather, the
tightness of their belt, the discomfort of coach
class airplane seats, and the difficulty getting 
off the sofa _caused_ the wanting.  And as long as
that cause is there, the wanting will be there.
The person doesn't just say "I choose to stop
wanting to lose weight" and suddenely stop 
wanting their belts not to pinch, their
backs not to ache while riding on airplanes,
and wishing it was easier to get up during
commercials.


>> > But to as many as received Him, He gave the power to
>> > become sons of God.
>>
>> The next verse:
>>
>> John 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the
>> will of the  flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
> 
> Read on. You only have to go a little further to see
> how one is born of God.

By Baptism.

>> Calling something "tired and old" is hardly an argument.
>> The writings of Moses are even older, and yet I don't
>> see you impugning them.  If this theory is false, then
>> demonstrate it.  Certainly, I've demonstrated that
>> "free will" is false doctrine.
> 
> No, you have not. Only your version of  "free will," which
> not many agree with.

There are not "versions" of free will.  There are people
who haven't thought about what "free will" might mean.
But other than that, everyone agrees that the issue
comes down to the point of whether a man's decision
is required for salvation.  

And there are tons of people who agree that such a
decision is nothing but obedience to the 1st Commandment
and therefore, such a doctrine is salvation by works.

I've made this very clear, very simple argument many times
on this group, and no one has every addressed it.  It
always gets snipped.  Hmmmm.....


 
>> > Both Lucifer and Adam
>> > and Eve were created good. They choose to sin. Hence
>> > a good nature can choose sin. And an evil nature can
>> > choose Christ.
>>
>> That's a freshman logic error.  If the living can
>> choose to die, does that mean the dead can choose
>> to live?  Is it possible to unbake a cake?
> 
> Your definition of death is false.

I gave no definition of death.  I gave, rather, examples
to show that because A can choose B doesn't mean B
can choose A.  A living person can choose to die.
But a dead person can't choose to live.  Likewise,
just because a good person can choose to sin, it does
not follow that an evil person can choose good.


>> > But when we accept the pardon offered in Christ, it
>> > is then and only then that our "wants" are changed
>> > by God. And we accept the pardon by our free will.
>>
>> And you don't see the trap here?  You can't choose
>> Christ until you want to, and you can't want to
>> until after you choose.
> 
> NO. There is no trap. Anyone can choose to
> want to receive Christ.

There really is no distinction here between "wanting
to be saved" and "wanting to want to be saved."  It's
a sophistry that tries to slip a work into the
salvation formula by making it seem smaller because
it's removed one more degree from Jesus.

 
>>  Conclusion: No one can be
>> saved.  (And this isn't a surprising conclusion.
>> No one _can_ be saved by the law, and "free will"
>> teaches salvation via the law.)
> 
> All can be saved. God desires that ALL be saved and
> that NONE perish. Deal with it.

Um, that's the point.  The logical conclusion of
"free will" is that none can be saved.  "Free will"
contradicts what you just said.  Now how will you
"deal with" that?


> It is not really a "decision." Salvation is not
> received by a "decision," but by believing.
> We receive Christ by faith.
> But we can decide whether to learn as the
> Father teaches.

This is, again, self-contradictory.  First you
say "it's not a decision".  But your formula goes
like this:

1.  We decide to want to be saved, so then:
2.  We decide to learn what the Father teaches, which:
3.  Causes us to have faith because faith come through hearing.
4.  Then, since we have faith, we are saved.

Salvation accomplished through the initial act of
the will of man.

It doesn't matter how far back you put the decision,
(in fact, the farther back, the worse it is) it makes
man, not God, the originator of salvation.  God only
swoops in to help a man who was noble enough to ask
for the help.  Which means that some men are, by 
nature, savable while others are not, because they
are not noble enough to decide on their own strength
to want to want to love God.

This is where "free will" leads, and there really is
no way around it.

Bart

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 1/9/05 10:39:23 AM