@@mitchellc4 give up dude! Or at least listen to the sermons where you put the same commentaries over and over! And I don't want the replies you already replied to me on the other videos over the last years. You're following a cult! Open your eyes and repent of your dogma!
@@mitchellc4 ....but what about 1Jn 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. The Authorized Version
I met Dr. Sproul twice; 1987 and 1995. He was gracious both times and we had a good opportunity to chat about meaningful things after i heard him teach. I said “ I may have read too many of your books to the tune of about 30 titles of yours. Is that a problem?” He said “yes, it means you are a glutton for punishment.” Lol😂 I truly miss and loved him much and give glory to God for how much he was used to point me to Christ.
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
It has taken me 34 years to actually take up and read the Word of God for Truth....rather than rely on my own understanding......and I've come to the realization that this Book is to be read as it should.....to learn Gods understanding......to not put my own "self righteous thoughts" into Gods understanding of his Word....for I am a sinner.....and I am in need of The Saviour. I use to think by picking and choosing bible verses I have never thoroughly read thru, would make myself sound and feel cool. I was so wrong.....So much Truth has me made fall on my knees.....and exalt God on high.....Having Bible studies now to when I was younger has changed dramatically. My younger cousins would read a verse, and take it waaaaaay outta context. If this was me 15 years ago, I wouldn't have caught it. But now that I'm thoroughly reading the Word Of God, I can help them stay within the context of the verses. I am by no means a teacher, for I myself am still learning. Just to see how I would interpret a verse from long time ago, to now, really shows a big difference in my studying of Gods word. I am really glad that I am able to help my younger cousins right the wrongs I used to do when I was fumbling thru scripture. I heard about Charles Spurgeon thru a Paul Washer sermon, and well; ill be getting his book. I ran by a quote of his, "visit many books, but live in the bible." So very True. The word of God has helped me alot. OT, and NT in perfect harmony with one another. Pointing to Christ Jesus who in which is in the center of it. I don't deny I am a sinner.....but I won't willfully fall back into it. Sinner Saved thru the Blood of Christ. Calls us all to repentance. Abide in him. RIP Dr. Sproul.
You just need the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey everything what is written. You don’t need calvinism or any -isms. Unbeknown to listeners of his philosophy lecture, it’s full of set up and switch and bait methodology. Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Them he immediately asks this question, “ How can a man be free when he already determined the choices he made?” Therefore, RC Sproul concluded, “Man has no freewill” because man has already determined the choices he made. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same thing with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question follows, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude, GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded His choosing thus precluded any freewill. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically then and now writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” AGAIN, You don’t need calvinism or any -isms. You just need the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that is written in the Scriptures.
@@papabear887You should listen to yourself . “ Trust and obey all that is written in the Scriptures .” Why don’t you then , instead of twisting verses out of context to make Gods Word say what suits your ideas of what God is like ? If the Father in heaven does not draw a person to the Son , the Lord Jesus Christ , no one can come to Him . John 6;44 “For by grace through faith ye are saved , and that not of yourself ; it is the gift of God ; not of works lest anyone should boast .” Will you still disbelieve the Holy Bible ? Do you think you rejected Satan and chose to allow Almighty God to save you ? Do you have that natural inclination within you to overcome your sinful , fallen nature and seek the Lord and His righteousness ? The Bible says you don’t !
Job 22:21-22 NKJV 21 “Now acquaint yourself with Him, and be at peace; Thereby good will come to you. 22 Receive, please, instruction from His mouth, And lay up His words in your heart.
2 Corinthians 5:17 NKJV 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1:7-9 ESV All means all brother. Prior to coming to Jesus we recognize we are sinners once we’re cleansed He removes it… as far as the east is from the west according to Psalm 103:12 It’s part of the renewal of the mind. Changing the way you view yourself and what you call yourself. Your brand new. Walk in that!!
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
@@papabear887I was skeptical of these particular video. I will look more into it myself, but you are a breath of fresh air concerning Scripture and what it actually wants us to know. All we need to do is rely on Christ and we have won already. God bless.
I asked the Good Shepherd about the subject of “free will”. His answer was, “None of My sheep have free will.” I am forever praising and believing Jesus Christ and this is pleasing to God.
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Ugh! This is sooooo good. My understanding of free will and how it pertains to my faith and the mechanisms to the evils of this world have expanded greatly. I cannot wait to follow up with “Mans Radical Fallenness”
@@mitchellc4 What does any of this have to do with the initial comment? More importantly your gospel is a false gospel and what you say is heresy. Repent and believe the true gospel. Jesus is God!
Well, if he approaches the subject from a philosophical perspective (and he does, of course), that's because he has studied so much philosophy as a theologian. And I appreciate your prediction and assertion of my own thinking, but that is quite a dangerous task given that you have not read anything about my theology or my perspective. If you would care to have a Biblical, theological discussion on the condition of the human will, then I am entirely willing and able to do so. While we are “free” to do what we want to do, we are bound in what we want to do by our evil nature and desires (Romans 8:7): we may DO as we please, but we cannot PLEASE as we please. That is to say, we cannot use our will to shape our nature, but rather, it is our nature that determines how we will use our wills. God has given us a will, but that will is most certainly not “free,” (that is to say "autonomous," free of any outside force) after all, the bible says very often, and in many different ways, that we are utterly bound in sin and absolutely incapable of submitting to God (Romans 8:7); in our flesh, we cannot please God (Romans 8:5-8); we cannot understand the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:14; John 3:3, 10-13; 14:17); we cannot seek God (Romans 3:11); we cannot believe in God (John 6:44, 65; 10:26; 12:37-41); we cannot do anything good at all (Job 15:14-16; Proverbs 20:9; Jeremiah 13:23; Romans 3:10-18); we are utterly captive to sin (John 8:34; Romans 6:20; Titus 3:3); we are prisoners of the devil and constrained to do his desires (John 8:43-45, 2 Timothy 2:25-26; 1 John 5:19); every impulse of the thoughts of our hearts is only evil continually (Genesis 6:5), and so every action we perform, no matter how “good” we think it is, is actually evil, nothing but “filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6). Ever since the fall, we are not free to do anything good whatsoever; salvation is solely an act of God’s will (John 6:44), and we can only begin to do good as the Spirit gives us a new nature (Ezekiel 36:26-27). We are only free when the Son sets us free (John 8:36). There is much more that I could say at this point, but I am hesitant to write a novella without first hearing your own views of the freedom of the will.
Leonard, It's true that many (if not most?) within Christendom have aligned themselves along sectarian lines, calling themselves by their favorite teachers where one will call themselves a "Calvinist," while others will call themselves a "Wesleyan," "Arminian," or whatever, and in all the milieu of competing voices, one gets the impression that they have all variously aligned themselves for the sole purpose of infighting within Christendom. The truth is, I came to the understanding that I have of the Bible without the aid of any of these teachers, although, admittedly, I do enjoy the writings of Owen, Charnock, Calvin, Edwards, Luther, and I do listen to Sproul, MacArthur, and Washer just to name a few... But I came to their teaching, not because I began there with a presupposition, but because I wound up there after many years of my own study, reading the Bible, as well as any theologian that I could get my hands on, until I found writers who taught what I felt was in accordance to the authorial intent of the Bible. I may be wrong, but I have never been given any exegetical grounds to believe otherwise. The condition of the will of man seems to be nothing but a battleground these days, where infighting has caused very much damage to the church, and at the heart of the argument is the very nature of God, that is, His sovereignty as it regards the salvation of man. One of the biggest problems dividing the church is the false dichotomy being created between the requirement for man to believe for salvation on the one hand, and God's choice in salvation on the other - there are many teachers who would say that the Bible teaches an either/or approach to salvation where the one camp emphatically states that "we must believe in order to be saved" while ignoring God's sovereignty over salvation, while the other camp states "God chooses who will be saved" while ignoring the requirement for man to believe. What people in both of these camps need to realize is that the Bible does not present an "either/or" proposition between these two ideas. The truth is a "both/and" scenario: We must believe in order to be saved (Acts 16:30-31), and it is God who chooses who will be saved and grants him the ability to believe (John 6:44, Acts 13:48); if you are willing (Isaiah 1:19), it is because God has made you willing. As to your suggestion - Romans 2:29 is a verse that I have used with my students in teaching the necessity of repentance. The true child of God is not the one who seeks approval by his outward working and keeping of the law, but rather the true child of God is the one who seeks approval from God by obedience which is worked within him by the Spirit.
If the term "unconditional election" is offensive, call it a chicken, what we call a particular teaching is irrelevant, what is important is the doctrine that the Bible teaches. Although there are 5 different ways in which the word "election" is used in scripture, John 6 and Acts 13 are specifically referring to God's election of certain individuals to salvation. God, before the foundation of the world, chose to make certain individuals the objects of His unmerited favor or special grace (Mark 13:20, Ephesians 1:4-5, Revelation 13:8, Revelation 17:8). These individuals from every tribe, tongue and nation were chosen by God for adoption, not because of anything they would do but because of His sovereign will (Romans 9:11-13, Romans 9:16, Romans 10:20, 1 Corinthians 1:27-29, 2 Timothy 1:9, John 5:21). God could have chosen to save all men (He certainly has the power and authority to do so), and He could have chosen to save no one (He is under no obligation to save anyone). He instead chose to save some and leave others to the consequences of their sin (Exodus 33:19, Deuteronomy 7:6-7, Romans 9:10-24, Acts 13:48, 1 Peter 2:8) as an everlasting testament to His justice against sin. John 10:26 - "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep." Belief is predicated on whether or not you are one of God’s sheep, not the other way around; note that He doesn’t say “you are not of My sheep because you do not believe.”
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
I had the privilege of sitting under Dr. Sproul's teachings at Reformed Theological Seminary back in the day. I did not realize the level of scholarly insight he had at the time. He, along with Dr. Tim Keller, had a large impact on my christian faith.
Freewill ,what is Freewill? Abused of Freedom is what gets us in bondage. Thank God He provides a way to behold Holy Freedom again with our God. Jesus our redemer. Thanks RC. You have done well. Gm
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead!
One of the benefits of RUclips. Unfortunately this kind of intimate setting is almost a thing of the past. I miss this type of setting as a young believer way back when. Today too many conferences panel discussions where only select personalities are on display and where a large audience can only become involved by getting on a line , given a mic in order to ask one of the great gurus for an opinion on the subject at hand. For me these are really the good ole days. Sproul at his best. The philosopher- theologian of scriptural truth. Great memories indeed!
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead!
Alow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately asks this question, “How can a man be free when he already determined the choices he made?” Therfore, RC Sproul concluded, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices he made. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, then RC Sproul must conclude the same thing about God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Speoul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question follows, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude, GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded His choosing and thus precluded any freewill. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically bow and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism or any -isms. You only need the Scriotures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey completely what’s writtenin Scriptures.
The Lord granted me salvation and that moment I KNEWwho He was!! How marvelous how powerful how merciful how wonderful too much too big that my mind cannot even imagine. And there’s no chance I would’ve turned that down: so I repented and picked up my cross from that day forth:
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
The fear of God is wisdom! Job 28:28, in Him our will becomes the Will of the Father's. My food is to do the will of Him that sent me and finish His work. John 4:34. Great video thank you!
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead!
@@mitchellc4 Holiness is required of you. Hebrews 12;14. Abide in Him. John 15. There is no time left GOD knows the heart of every man and nothing is hid from HIM. The WORD is our TRUTH. Luke 12:3-5.
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
@@papabear887 Do you obey Jesus Christ when he says: sin no more? Or do you believe the Living God when He says do right and you will be accepted? May Pappa bear know the Word of Yahweh and not a mere man shalom.
@@truthlighthouse1717Yes , I do. Yeshua (Jesus) delivered me from my known sins back in May 4, 2007 and I have not lived in those sins EVER again. Just as Jesus said in John 8:36, “ So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed!”, I am a witness to it. My fight is against false doctrines espoused in all -isms, including calvinism, reformed theology. This is not personal to RC Sproul or any calvinists and redormed theologians. I hope to God that He forgave them. Ephesians 5:11 says, “ Take no part in the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them-“ My hope is to atleast expose philosophy, empty deception, traditions of men, basic principles of the wrold, man made commands and teachings, and false humility that does nothing to stop indulgences of the flesh (Colossians 2). I have already encountered two individuals in RC Sproul’s freewill lecture that have stopped being a christian.
I want to make sure when you stated that “it enriches you so much” that you understood RC Sproul’s syllogism. He said, “every choice man makes is free AND every choice man makes is determined.” Then he asks this question right after that, How can man be free when the choices he made were determined by himself? Therefore, according to RC Sproul’s logic, “man has no freewill” because man determined the reason or lack thereof or the desired out outcome for the choice. Now using the same argument RC Sproul uses, Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined. How then can God be free when the choices He made were determined by Himself alone? Therefore, according to RC Sproul’s syllogism, GOD MUST NOT HAVE FREEWILL as He determined the reason or lack thereof or the desired outcome for the choice!!!!!
@@tanparapal1963 it has nothing to do with thought. only spirit can reveal this essential truth of reality you're arrogance in assuming your freedom from god means you have that forever, without repentance..freedom FROM God. all are born separated and the freedom humans seek and never find is evil and disastrous. that's why it's so important to put into perspective. this is the only reality there is and your imaginary self righteous self sufficient self promoting reality is an incompetent delusion.😢
@@QuakerTakerThere you are again. Jesus loves you so much that He reads your comments and takes them seriously especially among the community of believers. I hope you are doing well.
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
You are actually insane and make no sense. You would be better off trying to convert people to Christianity, than try to make Christians doubt their faith.@@papabear887
Thank you Pastor John🙏 I am in a Protestant church and i dont agree with how they preach baptism. After me and my husband started bible study with WBS, World bible school, it all became clear. You are a man of God and i Thank the Lord for blessing us with someone that teaches nothing but the scriptures!!!
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote. I hope this helps you and your children.
Always remember first and foremost Jesus has done everything we need for eternal life with Him, and Jesus is offereing His free gift to every single human being He created, and each one of us have two choices, either we accept His free gift of eternal life with Him, or we reject it and spend eternity without Him. Accepting Jesus now means one becomes His Bride, friend, servant, and His Holy Spirit lives within us, and we have a real and personal relationship with our Heavenly Father God, Christ Jesus, Holy Spirit. and since each one of us either have a personal relationship with Jesus or rejecting Him we do not, how can one have a personal relationship with someone else without being free to choose everything we think, feel, say and do? I freely choose to accept Jesus as my Lord, God, King, sand Saviour, and through His Holy Spirit living within me and guiding me, i am following Jesus and communing with Jesus and worshipping Jesus, all day long every day. Praise Jesus.
I agree completely with you. RC Sproul however had done something beyond “fruitless that needed to be exposed (Ephesians 5:11).” Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
LeadingEd Did you notice he referenced Edwards and Augustine and fallen man more than the scriptures? Did he even use any scripture? Poor explanation on free will. How could this be excellent without the Word of God? 🤔
Andrew Boone Yes you’re right we have a mind or a reason and He also gave us freewill for a reason. You can’t use your mind if you don’t have freewill. We’re not robots. We have a mind exactly as you say I agree. Minds allow us to reason. We can’t reason without freewill. *Tell me how do you reason with someone with no freewill?* ISAIAH 1:18 18 COME NOW, AND LET US REASON TOGETHER, SAITH THE LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If man has no freewill then is God just wanting to reason with HIMSELF?
Brad Well what does being “well versed” mean? Does that mean they can quote and reference scripture well? There’s a massive difference between being able to reference passages and actually being able to understand said passages. If being “well versed” in the scriptures included having understanding of what the scriptures actually mean then those men were terribly versed in the scriptures.
That was teaching? He didn’t explain where desire/inclination comes from. If he can’t explain where desire/inclination arise then he hasn’t explained a single thing. The “devil”', “fallen state” are as much a non answer to origin of our desires as “god”.
@@itneywhat our desires come from our hearts. The desires we have are from a fallen heart and nature which we were given by adam our representative in the garden. Our desires are from our natural fallen state. To put it this way God places us in the family we are born in. He gave us all our senses and we start desiring evil from a fallen state that is not upright and good. So in short our desires come from within ourselves when we experience the good things Gof has given us and we make them filthy in the eyes of God. God created Good. Anything outside of that standard of Good is evil.
@@itneywhat hope that made sense. Our desire comes from ourselves. It's like you have a charecter that you made and set him off on a quest and everything he does is based off of his decisions and you knowing his heart give him the tools and or the ability to do the things you dont want him to do prescriptively, but you want him to do so for your decreed will which was to teach your charecter lessons in which he had to do on his own.
It doesn't make sense at all. I'm responsible to correct a situation that I was born into (original sin...take one breath and your guilty!). The BOOK says that I was born with desires (um yeah this guy ate an apple soooo). I never chose my thoughts or desires...do you folks choose your thoughts/inclinations? I'm not asking if you can control your actions but can you control your very thoghts? Free will and an all knowing all powerful god can't make sense. Can you surprise god? He knew you would steal (all knowing, right?) but you suprised him and kept your stick fingers off the goods. I don't understand and I'm very close to calling it (faith, religion) nonsense.
Whether we choose from our sinful nature or try to please God in our choices for his will it still choice ..I love the explanation of the deep-rooted destination where our choice comes from but it's still a choice and free will... yet I know I had nothing to do with my salvation as my will fought it the whole time... but God's mercy praise God Almighty wonderful counselor Prince of Peace my hero my savior Abba brought me to the Son... I guess after I had awakened to the truth I did truly decide in my whole being yes Lord be my Saviour please
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
I am surprised that RC did not use 1 Cor 2:14 in this lecture. I think that Jonathan Edwards may have been thinking of this verse when he discussed moral ability: "...the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him; and he cannot know them because they are spiritually discerned..."
Rob Hay , sorry, my friend you are wrong on this. Jude 19 defines the natural man as one not possessing the Spirit. Paul speaks of three kinds of man in 1 Cor 2 & 3. Spiritual, natural and carnal. The spiritual man is the mature Christian. The carnal is what Paul calls the Corinthian believers at the beginning of chapter 3 who he will feed on the milk of the word. The natural man has neither desire (spiritual things are foolishness to him) and he also lacks capacity (cannot know spiritual things). It could not be clearer. This does not mean that the natural man does not have free agency. He is free to do everything that is consistent with his nature. Only when the natural man is born from above - he becomes a new creation - does he now begin his journey to spiritual maturity.
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
"9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him" Hebrews 5:9 "34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him." Acts 10:34-35 "3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." 1 Timothy 2:3-4 "9 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 Peter 3:9 "30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent" Acts 17:30
How will you obey until He changes your heart, mind, will, and disposition??? It won't ever happen until God in HIS SOVEREIGNTY AND PURPOSE WANTS TO MAKE IT OR PLANNED FOR IT RO HAPPEN BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD!!!
@@levigarrett5614 From the context of what's said THE US AND THE ALL ARE THE TRUE BELIEVERS IN CHRIST JESUS,, REMEMBER THAT YOU MUST HAVE SCRIPTURE INTERPRET SCRIPTURE!!!
Absolutely brilliant teaching, so clear and so much in the urge to honour the godly reason and love of the sublime . If only the godless would grasp how unarguable this is
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead!
@@andrewadler4576 Any scripture that says that?? Who is the God of Jesus?? Rom 15 6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 2 Cor 11 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed for ever, knows that I do not lie. Eph 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, Eph 1 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, Col 1 3 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, 1 Pet 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, Rev 1 6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
@@andrewadler4576 Who is the God of Jesus??? Rom 15 6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 2 Cor 11 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed for ever, knows that I do not lie. Eph 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, Eph 1 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, Col 1 3 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, 1 Pet 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, Rev 1 6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Again going through my playlist titled "Learn Something", I'm certain I included this one for the sake of having more concise words with which to explain all the ramifications of the concepts of free will to others. It's amazing How our beloved R.C. always had a way of stating things clearly and comprehensively, and even though these things "seem" to have always been known by me, never would I have been able to articulate it as well as he does here. Looks like I need to move this video to my "to teach" playlist. Thank you, again and again Ligonier Ministry. I've learned more theologically and doctrinally from this ministry over the past 8 years than all of the previous 20 years from other sources. Q. Do you agree that Romans 7 is the POV of a post regenerate Paul?
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
@@iacoponefurio1915 you cannot love God? What do you mean mean? Idol? The creator and sustainer of this world an idol? You can love your car, football, golf, your dog etc. and are they your idols? Your creator is not an idol He Is worthy of love and and praise but if you do not recognize it as such is your loss and have the freedom to do so , no one is forcing you.
@@olgaburgos7780 nutjob your self righteousness makes you totally ineligible for the kingdom of God You hate the real God and make your own delusion and call it God You are not a Christian Read the actual bible get a clue
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then RC Sproul follows it immediately with question, “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined by him?” Then RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because the choices he made were already determined by him! In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul would conclude the same thing with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this. Using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the parallel question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined by Him?’ Then RC Sproul must conclude, GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because the choices He made were already determined by Him! In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded His choosing and thus precluded any freewill. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightly and prophetically writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism or any -isms. You just need the Scripture, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Just trust and obey all that Jesus commamded.
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
I used to visit my Canadian clan at least once a month, but I haven't been back to the Niagara Region since Feb 2020. I can't believe it's been over three years.
Reading the parable of the "Prodigal Son", which Jesus used to explain Salvation, I wonder why the younger son wasn't "elected" to return, because Jesus explains that the younger son made a FREEWILL decision to return & appeal to his dad's mercy. 🔸Luke 15:18 I WILL get up and go to my father, and will tell him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight"
That parable is mainly about adoption as sons. The father wants two sons, but in differrent ways, each wants only what is due to him. The prodigal wants at first his assigned inhereitance, only to leave his father and be his own man with the inheritance. Later, he designs, out of desperation, to return and be as like a servant of his father (so that he may eat, and have shelter) and yes, has some hope that as a son, his father may have mercy enough to let him be like as a servant only to the father. But the father welcomes him back AS A SON, A FULL SON, AND REJOICES AT HIS RETURN. The other brother, has stayed and been a dutiful son, in his own mind, EARNING therefore, his sonship. When his prodigal brother returns, he is offended at his Fathers rejoicing. His father reminds him that this entere time whaterver was his (the fathers) has also been his (the elder brother). This story is about how each son sees himself as the agent, earning or abusing, what comes to him by way of their father. The father (god) is trying to give them each EVERYTHING he has, because of his great unending mercy, not their works, etc.
@@mathewlowrey2734 Yes, it's about adoption. The younger son was lost but now has been found, because he's repented & decided to return to his father. It was not the father's seeking (or decision) that brought him back. The elder son though with the father all along, is as good as lost. The younger son made a choice & the father responded by offering his love & adopting him back as his son.
Romans 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? The goodness that his father had sown in the son’s heart, bore the fruit of repentance. I am forever praising and believing Jesus Christ and this is pleasing to God.
@@mathewlowrey2734 Romans 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? The goodness that his father had sown in the son’s heart, bore the fruit of repentance. I am forever praising and believing Jesus Christ and this is pleasing to God.
I agree. RC Sproul revealed the fallacy of his argument . Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
So the freewill was really for us to give it back to our Maker. The freedom of choosing what is right and not the wrong. Of course...we can still make mistakes but there are less of them. There is another problem I see with any individual. And that is when we don't read the Lord's Word we can be manipulated, deceived or programmed from the world and its way and values. The one Scripture that tells us a lot is from Jesus. Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God. Mathew 4:1-4. R.C. Sproul has always been a very good preacher ordained by God.
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
@@papabear887 Do I see the setup? Man has no freewill to choose in moral matters on anything. Because, of his inabilty and power to become righteous or perfect. Got you: So here we are in the Garden. God created everything and said, it was good. He made man and put him in that good place of natural. We see they had freedom except this one tree. R.C. Sproul said, man has the power on the natural ability. So things were good until... Well, Eve first takes from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and Adam follows. Did not the serpent plant a decision for them to eat this forbidden fruit? If there is NOT any freedom to choose here, then we have to say God predestined that they bring sin in this world. After all,it was now a moral issue in fact, a command not to eat. In Genesis 4:6-8. Read it and see there is no twist of a freewill option. God told Abel if you doest well shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. Did not God give Cain a choice to do good or evil? Yes. I believe God knew what would happen and knew who will come to Him. Why would God tell his Apostles to go out and spread the message of the Gospels? Why waist that time if it was already decided. Why preach the Bible at all if they can do what you said in the end. All you need is Scriptures. Is that not a decision for one to read or not to read. In closing...I agree with your last statement because that is exactly how I gave my life to the One God. Jesus Christ Lord and Savior of my sins. In fact, he was the One who told me I was the sinner because I kept on asking, why does God's choosen people keep sinning. God has also said, my people perish for the lack of knowledge. They chose sin and not the One who can help them become perfect one day most likely when the saved recieved thier new bodies. God's Word has the power and people make a moral choice not to read it. God gave us all a soul...and the freewill to choose I rest my case on Deut 30:19. Proverbs 3:31 Isaiah 7:15. My final point: Psalm 25:12 What man is he that feareth the Lord? him shall He TEACH in the way that he should go. Only then can we choose His way.
@@jmbbk4737I appreciate your response. I just wanted to show to viewers that RC Sproul’s syllogism while already horrible in all its presentation, that even before he began to use it, already claimed a contradictory anachronistic set of terms but still proceeded to make the premises: “every choice a man makes is free and every choice a man makes is determined”. Thus I wrote.
@@papabear887 Sorry. I read you wrong. I thought you believed in R.C.'s teaching on this subject. He once used the story of Joesph who was sold by his brothers and ended up being high in Pharaoh's empire for his case. He told his brothers. You made it for evil but God made it for good. We all best be careful who we listen to. The twisting of God's Holy Word is being transformed into a man-centered gospel with new-age arriving for an emergent church to mingle together with Catholicism. Yeah. A one world religion and many other entities who are eager for peace without the Prince of Peace. Very exciting but troubling times are here. May the Lord strengthen us and give us more courage to run the gauntlet. Peace to you Papabear887; over and out.
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead!
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
It is because of our low Moral Ability that we have been given the Ability to Repent and not sin again in order to make the righteouse choices, desired by Our Lord, abiding in Him
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Rom 10:13" For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (NOW!) . Free choice to call or not call on the Lord. Why doesn't this and the myriad of other verses in the Bible say "Whosoever was chosen before the foundation of the earth will be saved"? Because that would be an accursed predestined different gospel! Believe the Bible, NOT men!
He's good 👍 He has the vocab and articulation and can THINK clearly and structurally (did Philosophy) He knows his content, lectured as professor for many years. Studied broadly and vastly, reading books And coming from the secular to the church makes him a sharp preacher
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says “every choice man makes is free AND every choice man makes is determined.” Then RC Sproul follows it immediately with a question, How can man be free when the choices he made were already self determined? Thus RC Sproul concluded, “man has no freewill” because the choices he made, he already predetermined for whatever reason or lack thereof or for a desired outcome. Therefore his self determinism preceeded his choice and thus precluded any freewill. If that were true, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, consider this Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined. Then the question to follow using RC Sproul’s logic is, How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined by Himself? Thus, RC Sproul must conclude that GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because the choices He made He already predetermined for whatever reason or lack thereof or for a desired outcome. Therefore His self determinism preceeded His choice and thus precluded any freewill. Then RC Sproul doubles down by pandering, “of course, man has freewill for natural matters”. But for moral matters, to borrow the philosphers views “man has no ability or power for righteousness”. This method of logic is completely in disarray. After equating freewill and determinism as distinct and opposite entities, he now underhandedly and shamelessly pandering the natural versus moral matters to excuse and support his conclusion that “man has no freewill”. Furthermore, he adds that man by nature is corrupt and therefore man is incapable to be righteous or perfect!!! Thus what RC Sproul is saying is that indeed man has no freewill because not only is his choices predetermined precluding freewill, he is also incapable to be righteous or perfect!!! This time freewill is now to be looked at as “to choose ” and “to be”!!! At this point, it now begs the question: “can man freely choose to do right morally at the very least? If a practising muslim or hindu is drowning and sees a rescue boat, begins to wave his arm, screams when he can to save him, calls on his allah, false prophet muhammad, any gods or spirits to save him, but does he really not have a freewill to call on the One True God because he is morally corrupt and therefore morally incapable to call on Jesus but he can call allah? Is it not both a natural matter and moral matter to choose to save oneself from drowning and dying to have life? But why is it not possible to call on God the One True God but can call his allah or false prophet muhammad? To be saved from drowning and dying is one thing but to choose life over death by drowning is another thing. One is “to be” and the other one is “to choose”. Therefore freewill is “to choose”. “To be” is another completely different matter. But to say that “man has no freewill because he predetrmined his choice”’and he is incapable “to be” is a disastrously incoherent argument. Furyhermore, RC Sproul just committed a “bait and switch arguement”. This time, he not only falsely equates ‘choices made as free and choices made as determined’ on the one hand, then to say ‘to choose’ and ‘to be’ on the other hand as a reasonable arguement for “man has no freewill” conclusion. If that were not enough, he underhandedly threw in , “of course, man has freewill to do natural matters but not moral matters”. He then equates natural and moral distinctions on one hand and freewill and determinism distinctions on the other hand!! This type of philosophy is pure mental gymnastics without rules. The target moves constantly. If you answer on the negative, they respond on the positive. If you consider both distinctions as equals, they move to another topic altogether that is unrelated but nonetheless pretend to be universally accepted. The worst part is at the beginning of his so called lecture which I call cunning deception: He promoted the idea that the christians at large believe in his creation of humanistic definition of freewil. He says freewill is “the ability to choose spontaneously “!!!! Then he starts dismantling his own creation by pretending that the vast majority of christians think it or believe it!!! Does anyone really choose spontaneously? Choosing by nature implies some value or lack thereof!!!!! To choose and to will are also two distinct terms. Both have implied value!!! At the very least, they are tools to convey a thought. Freewill is not the absence of influence to want or desire. It is simply to desire or to want despite or in spite of influence or lack thereof or experience or lack thereof. So for anyone to say freewill is to choose spontaneously without inclination, disposition, imfluence or determination, whoever does that? But according to RC Sproul “most christians” do.
how to explain God's predestination and human being's freewill interrelation. it seems that our mind logically will say that if God's predestine our choice/ free will , then why we have moral responsibility of our choice ? unless the God's predestination is only limited to pre known our choice .however, this will contradict to the sovereignty of God.
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead!
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Yes I love RC sproul. He's the one that convinced me of reformed theology and predestination. When he left to be with the Lord the world became a bit darker. I look forward to seeing him again and thanking him.. I love reform doctrine it is the true biblical doctrine and sweat the Bible teaches. And it makes perfect sense. And it takes away man's arrogance and sinful pride. It makes us realize it is God who saved us we had nothing to do with it except respond which was irresistible. Thank you Jesus! It's been 49 years for me. Love in Christ. Pastor Duane and Chico pup
Well he knows the TRUTH now ... Salvation is available to ALL, but not all will receive it. We don't serve a CRUEL God who created people for the sole purpose of burning in hell for eternity.
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
There is a MASSIVE difference between free will and volition. Only being to ever have there will totally free is God himself. There are no outside influences directing Gods will. It is free from any outside influences. Mans will is conditional meaning he can choose between things but outside influences play a role in mans decision which is called volition. Man can choose only what his will is bound to which in this case is Sinful Nature!!!! The bible states that no man woman or child will seek after God but we only seek after God because God first seeketh after you. PERIOD
Free Will is the mind choosing. The mind and the will are inseparably related, we do not make moral choices without the mind approving the direction of our choice. That is one of the dimensions that is closely related to the biblical concept of conscience; that the mind is involved in moral choices. For example: If I become aware of certain options, and if I prefer one over the other, To have a preference, before I can make the choice, I have to have some awareness of what those options are, for it to be a moral decision.
yes at the moment of choice we follow our strongest inclination! If Jesus is Lord in your life then of course you will make the choice that glorifies Him.
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “every choice a man makes AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then right after that, he asks, How can man be free when he made the choices that he already determined? Thus RC Sprouls concludes, “man has no freewill” because his self determinism for whatever reason or lack thereof or for a desired outcome he sought preceeded his choice and thus precluded any freewill. Thus man has no freewill. If that were true, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, consider now this, Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined. Then the immediate question applies, How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined by Himself? Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude that GOD MUST HAVE NO FREEWILL because His self determinism for whatever reason or lack thereof or for a desired outcome He sought preceeded His choice and thus precluded any freewill. Thus TC Sproul must conclude God has no freewill. James 1:27 writes, “Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, AND to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:33 writes, “Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” I hope you stay faaaar away from calvinism. You just need the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and Holy Spirit to teach you all things. Your role is simply to obey the Father.
Interesting Dr. Sproul said that free will is the "ability to choose according to one's highest desire", when others would have free will be defined precisely to "be able to choose despite one's desire", that is even know I wish to do evil, I choose to do the good.
We are always choosing what we desire most. So even if you would say "i desire this thing more than anything else but i will choose that thing instead" it meant that you did not really desire "this" thing more than anything else, rather you desired "that" thing more than anything else. That is how it goes.
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Philippians 2: 9 Because of this, Father YAHweh also has highly exalted YAHshua, and given Him a Name which is above every Name; 10 That in the Name of YAHwehShua, every knee in heaven, on earth, and under earth, must bow, 11 And every tongue must confess that YAHwehShua Messiah is King, to the glory of YAHweh the Father.Hallelu-YAHwehShua Praise Father YAHweh.
I agree with you. I don’t know much Hebrew but quoting the passage from Scriptures does not return void. Since you are commenting on the site where RC Sproul’s freewill lecture is…I would like to respond to his subject freewill. Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Free will is the freedom from God to all mankind that allows us to make choices. We are not christian robots. God tells us to repent and believe, and I did, I made a choice. God gets all the credit and glory for my salvation. God allowed me to make a decision, most say no to him. Yes God allows people to say no to him, read His word it's full of stories where people say no and disobey. The rich young ruler was offered salvation from Jesus, he walked away, said no.
Who's fault is it for our "desire" towards imperfection? If we can only choose what we desire most in any particular situation, then we must ask if we can choose our desires. If we did not choose our desires then there is no "free will" worth mentioning.
@Bastian B - Just to make sure I'm following you correctly: I desire Coke more than I desire Pepsi. Therefore there's no point talking about free will. Is that about right? If so, what does it look like for a person to change their desire about which soft drink they want? Can a person decide "Next Friday, for no good reason, I'm going to change my desire, and prefer Pepsi instead of Coke, and from then on, any time someone puts the choices in front of me, I will desire [and therefore choose] Pepsi"?
In terms of "fault", it depends what you mean. God is causatively responsible for our bad choices (in that He is omnipotent, and could have ordained that something else occur) but not morally responsible for our choices (in that these are the choices of other moral agents). The distinction between primary agency and secondary agency is important here. "If we can only choose what we desire most in any particular situation" that is correct, but the "can" there is moral, not physical. In other words, it is obviously open to an Orc not to pillage a town; the Orc could just go for a walk. But morally speaking, the Orc is so depraved that it can't help itself but choose otherwise. So there is an important distinction between physical inability (where the moral agent wouldn't be responsible for its actions, since it was physically unable to do otherwise) and moral inability (where the orc is so corrupt it won't choose otherwise, and in that sense is "unable" to). In this sense, we are like the orcs. Now, does the Orc's moral inability to choose otherwise remove moral guilt? I can't see how it does - if the orc is so throughly bad that it couldn't choose something other than the bad, I don't think that removes moral guilt. Wouldn't that rather increase it? Not only was wrong done, but it was done with an evil passion for that evil. Your last comment: so yeah, our "free will" doesn't include the ability to choose our desires. So any definition of free will can't contain that choice. Our will is free in that we do what we want to do, and it was open to us to choose otherwise. Does that make sense?
Bastian B See a fellow drop his wallet. You pick it up, it's thick with hundreds, give it back immediately? Keep it all. Take half or all the cash and get the wallet back? Are you penniless or just homeless....Will the wallet owner reward you if you're honest? Understand you keeping all or half. Grateful for getting his credit cards and drivers license back only. Think, not my fault guys stupid, sell or use credit cards too...
@Bastian -- "Then we must ask *IF* we can choose our desires." Not within Calvinism. Your desires were chosen for you, by God when He created you in the womb with a nature inclined for evil, that you *FULFILL* His immutable decree. For their Confessions specifically state God alone has decreed whatsoever comes. So if they say, " You can change your desire for Pepsi or Coke", yet, after you've selected one over the other, their doctrines teach *THAT* choice itself was a *fulfilment* of God's immutable decree, you could NOT have chosen otherwise. The conclusion is obvious, everyone's a puppet made of flesh & blood within their systematic, and the "wants" & "desires" you're a slave to, are the *strings* God uses to have absolute control over you, to get you to sin, or to obey for His glory, outside any human will or exertion.
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead!
@@kidsgreenscreen9234 Who is the God of Jesus??? Rom 15 6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 2 Cor 11 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed for ever, knows that I do not lie. Eph 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, Eph 1 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, Col 1 3 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, 1 Pet 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, Rev 1 6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
@@mitchellc4 Do you not know that He came to the world as a server and as a son of man? And ahh, can you read the Bible where Scripture say Jesus is God, He is King, everlasting Father, Before Abraham was Jesus, He is the first and the last, Alpha and Omega, The word became flesh, One King, One God and One Savior,? Do you not read your Bible? Or you fail to understand the context?
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
RC does a great job on this subject. The church today is so inconsistent in its theology, making videos like this a must see! If God chose us in eternity past, Ephesians 1:4 then why would He leave our salvation up to us?
You have such a high regard for RC Sproul on this subject. But let me make sure you understood what he said in his syllogism. Because if it is true that “man has no freewill”, using the same logic RC Sproul used, he will come to the same conclusion about God!!! RC Sproul said “Every choice man makes is free and every choice man makes is determined.” Then he asked this question right after it, “How can man be free when he made choices that he determined by himself?” Therefore, he concludes, “man has no freewill” because he determined the reason or desired outcome previously by himself. OK fair enough! Them applying RC Sproul syllogism: Every choice God makes is free and every choice God makes is determined by Himself. Then using RC Sproul’s scrutiny, the question then is How can God be free when He made choices that He determined by Himself! Therefore , RC Sproul must also conclude, GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He determined the reason or desired outcome previously by Himself.
In regard to Ephesian 1:4, “ He chose us in the Messiah before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before Him in love.” Then verses 5 and 6 writes “He predestined us for adoption as sons through Messiah Yeshua, in keeping with the good pleasure of His will- to the glorious praise of His grace, with which He favored us through the One He loves!”, Do the passages, individually or together, literally or textually state anything about the absence of man’s participation? I’m sure most would say ‘no’ but calvinism makes an interpretation differently. It’s called eisegesis. It means the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one’s own presuppositions, agendas or biases. Ephesians has 6 chapters describing who believers are, the hope of His calling, what believers were once was, a partnership to God’s people and His household, a call to know the love of Messiah and be filled in fullness, an urgent call to walk in a manner worthy of the calling, a call to maturity toward Messiah’s fullness, insist to walk no longer as the pagans do, to lay aside the old self, be renewed in the spirit to be like God in true righteousness and holiness, to be imitators of God, walk in love and to remember that no immoral, indecent, or greedy person will have any inheritance in God’s kingdom, to walk as children of light, not be a drunkard, to submit to one another, loving wives and submitting to husbands, to obey parents and human masters and to be finally strong in the Lord by outting on the armor. That is a lot of encouragement to be active participants in the love of Messiah and the community of believers. Therefore in Ephesians 1:4-6, does it have a literal or textual statement of the absence of man’s active participation? I ask that question because the rest of the book of Ephesians does.
This is correct, that God demonstrates his sovereignty over salvation electing his people by name before the foundation of the world. Salvation is completely and utterly contingent upon God and his decretive will.
I disagree with the free will being us choosing according to our strongest inclinations. People everyday, saved and unsaved choose to do right even when they do not want to. They of course also choose to do wrong, however sometimes they do not want to. Almighty God gave us the option to choose. He, being absolutely Sovereign, has allowed us to choose, and ONLY a SOVEREIGN GOD could do that.
Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. God allows free will in His children until they are trained. Once trained it is not free to depart. I am forever praising and believing Jesus Christ and this is pleasing to God.
If a person would claim: "i desire this thing more than anything else but i will choose that thing instead" it means that this person did not desire "this" thing more than anything else, he rather desired "that" thing more than anything else and this is why he chose it.
Since you say that was an awesome lecture, I want to make sure you understood RC Sproul’s syllogism in getting to his conclusion that “man has no freewill”. RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then RC Sproul asks this question immediately right after, How can man be free when the choices he made were determined by himself for whatever reason or desired outcome he had in mind? Therefore, he concludes, by saying “Man has no freewill” as his choices were determined by himself preceeding to the choice!!! If that is true, using his arguement, Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined by Himself. Then using RC Sproul’s prying question after that statement, How can God be free when the choices He made were determined by Himself previously for whatever reason or desired outcome He had in His mind? Therefore, using RC Sproul’s concluding logic, God must have no freewill as His choices were determined by Himself preceeding to the choice!!!
@@papabear887 Huh, can we love God without the freedom to choose, which people do everyday? Is love real if not given freely? No, I believe not. If there is no free will then how does Calvin justify those who are predestined, from birth, to go to hell? There's a lot of holes in your understanding of God's word.
@@JamesPerigardI appreciate your response. Man does have freewill to want or desire inspite of influence or circumstance or the lack thereof. Thus anyone may believe or reject Jesus upon hearing the message. God’s punishment on man thus depends on man’s freewill response to wether he believes Him or not. Love is given and received freely. Children, infants and disabled young ones and anyone below the age of accountability God loves them completely. Where will they be when they die? Jesus once said “such as these (pointing to the little ones) that the kingdom of God belongs.”God’s warning has always been to man or woman- meaning the adults. I was simply responding to RC Sproul’s false syllogism.
@@QuakerTakerJesus loves you so much. The Father cares about you so much as well. He listens and reads your comments all the time. I love you too friend.
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead!
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Reflexiones personales que me llevo de este video: -Hay veces que nos ocurren cosas injustas o somos "víctimas" del mal del mundo, pero esto siempre tiene un significado. Dios espera que de aquella situación desfavorable surja algo mejor mejor de lo que teníamos hasta entonces, como si fuera un "renacer". -Si supuestamente nuestras acciones las llevamos a cabo sin alguna intención detrás, ¿Qué significado moral podrían llegar a tener nuestra acciones? ¿Acaso existiría un bien o un mal? Porque lo que más determina esto no es solo el resultado de nuestras acciones, sino la intención detrás de aquello. -Es imposible que nuestras decisiones no tengan una intención previa ya que sino ni siquiera nos tomaríamos el trabajo de decidir por alguna opción, simplemente nos quedaríamos paralizados. Y nuestras intenciones detrás de nuestras decisiones surgen de nuestra forma de ver al mundo, la cual es formada por varios factores y experiencias que pasamos a lo largo de nuestra vida, lo que nos lleva también a la conclusión de que no somos ni buenos ni malos por naturaleza, sino que lo somos por "adaptación". -El "Determinismo" significa que nuestras vidas están guiadas por fuerzas externas y no podemos hacer nada para controlarlo. -Ser libres de verdad es elegir lo que nosotros de verdad queremos para nuestras vidas. Esto quiere decir que de alguna forma los pecadores también son libres, ya que pecan de manera libre ya que es lo que ellos quieren hacer en aquel momento. Esto por una parte significa que la raíz del pecado nace del libre albedrío, ya que en nuestra libertad nosotros más de una vez habremos cometido un pecado, pero es parte de nuestra naturaleza. Dios nos dio el libre albedrío para elegir lo que nosotros queramos ya que Él quería tener una relación con nosotros, quería que Él elijamos amarlo, y Él nos dio el libre albedrío porque nos ama, ya que Él quiere que seamos capaces de elegir lo que nosotros de verdad queremos para nuestra vida aunque no este en sus planes y le duela. -Nosotros tenemos libre albedrío, pero perdimos la libertad. Cuando nos dejamos llevar por nuestros deseos carnales caemos en el pecado, y este pecado nos "ata" y nos volvemos esclavos de el. La verdadera libertad existe cuando nos liberamos del pecado y elegimos lo que nuestro corazón de verdad quiere.
The thoughts of man are of himself, but his footsteps are from God. Who gives us our desires? We have free will/thoughts but the action of doing the greatest desire is from the Creator of ALL things.
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Consider Leibniz's line, which is that our desires strongly incline our choices but do not determine them. This is probably a good way of thinking about libertarian free will.
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
@@papabear887 You seem to have really nailed the problem with Sproul's argument. I think the core problem is because, as a Reformed theologian, Sproul is dependent on Calvin's bad understanding of free will.
"To choose" and "to desire" are different things. We have to choose between our different desires. We have to choose also between the different reasons to do different things. But if it is not us that choose between all those things, that is not a free act. What does "choice" mean if I must choice the stronger desire?
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself included) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You (we) don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
A scientist in a lecture said that "Reality isn't real," or something like it. He needed to state his definitions. This speaker did that at the beginning; every speaker should do the same. I can't imagine anybody doing anything without a motive or reason. Humans need a yardstick, whether it is God, or Money, or something else. In this context free will is the freedom to choose our own God. It says nothing about what the consequences will be. The Prodigal's elder brother chose not to join the homecoming party. Nobody grabbed him by the scruff of the neck and dragged him in the gate. That is a practical example of free will.
I agree. RC sproul gave a set up by using his concocted “humanistic definition of freewill” which states that it is the ability to choose “spontaneously”. Then it got worse from then on. Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
@@iacoponefurio1915 "If he had freewill he would have forced his father to see things his way." That's literally the worst argument I've seen from someone and then you doubled down by insulting the other poster, twice.
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead!
This is some interesting philosophy. I think one alternative was omitted: mystery. Maybe understanding free will is not really possible. After all, the argument for Sproul's position relies on the notion that "unconstrained freedom" cannot ever have a reason for choosong one thing or another. This is only true on the assumption that choosing can be rationally explained in all circumstances. I think he is jumping to conclusions here. As for the idea that people are essentially led around by their desires, this is only different from determinism in a semantic sense if you assume that people have no ability to choose what they want. And that leads us to an odd idea. If people's choices are determined by their wants, then they are automata which have no real control. Simply set the desire and the will must obey. It is only if they have some ability to choose what they want that you can say they are free... but then you have the problem of wants determining choices determining wants. It's dizzying! This is an indication that the idea is all wrong. It isn't an equation to be solved mathematically, nor is it a logical idea to be pondered philosophically. Rather, it is a mystery- something more foundational and thus impossible to grasp within its own frame. If you have this idea in your head while you listen to Sproul's arguments, you'll realize that his ideas rely on circular reasoning. Because one's choices are determined by their desire, they cannot have any rational basis for a choice when unconstrained by the same. With no rational basis, no choice can be made. Therefore, all choices must be determined by desire. The most critical failure of this theory about will, desire, and choice occurs when you try and extrapolate it to God's choices. Who can say why God does things the way he does them? He tells us the reason sometimes. But you can hardly say that, prior to creation, God was somehow lacking a desired thing - he was in eternal relationship within the Trinity, dwelling in matchless light. No desire could possibly be unmet, even if God were susceptible to desire (which seems a stretch). So God, at the very least, must be a free agent, able to do as he pleases without constraint and without any goal besides that which he sets. And his reasons may be unknowable to us.
I agree. Explaining God through the lenses of philosophy is absurd. He knew that all along just before he made his premises but he still proceeded. And continuing with it- what he already thought was contradictory premises-he came out with a “desired outcome”. But he must also come to concluding that God has no freewill Allow me to explain … RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself included) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You (we) don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Over the years, I have studied the Bible regarding this matter. As best I can figure out, repentance is necessary for salvation. Scripture also teaches that repentance is a “gift” from God. But God does not grant that gift to everyone. Multiple verses in the NT contain the phrase “in the hope that God will grant them repentance” or “if God grants them repentance”. Reinforcing this, through the Gospels Christians are referred to as “the elect”, with the only logical implication being that some people are not elected. But I am very undecided as to how God makes the decision of whom to extend the gift of salvation.
We don't always acting according to our strongest inclinations. Sometimes our strongest inclination is towards something we perceive as being wrong, but instead we resist the temptation towards that object and choose the the thing we know is right. We can choose against our strongest inclinations.
In which case your strongest inclination would no longer be "towards something we perceive as being wrong," but rather toward "the the thing we know is right." Apart from a stronger inclination toward the latter (righteousness), you would never resist/forsake the former (unrighteousness).
Don't think I would agree Brian. If that was the case, then we would not be accountable for any of our choices. You only have to say, 'Hey, it's not my fault, I couldn't choose otherwise'. We must place responsibility in the hands of human beings and in order to do this, free will must exist.
This doesn’t negate accountability, but it does affirm that every choice we make, whether good or bad, is ultimately due to the greatest inclination of the will at the moment of choosing. As Jonathan Edwards argues, “In every act of will there is an act of choice; in every volition there is a preference or prevailing inclination of the soul which at that moment takes the soul out of a state of perfect indifference with respect to the immediate object of the volition. . . . Where there is absolutely no preferring or choosing-where there is nothing but an ongoing perfect equilibrium-there is no volition.” In short, “the will is always determined by the strongest motive.” If this weren’t the case, if every choice were equally desirable to us, we would never make any choice at all. Take as an example someone (such as myself) who loves desserts, especially those of the chocolate variety. Tonight I was confronted with the choice of whether or not to indulge in a piece of chocolate birthday cake at my weekly church small group. Now, I could have chosen not to eat a piece of cake (or perhaps two), but you better believe I did. I’m in decent shape, and, despite the fact I’ll have to expend more energy to counter those additional calories, my desire to have cake outweighed my desire not to engage in extra exercise. But suppose I were on a very strict diet, perhaps for serious health reasons, and confronted with the same scenario. My desire for indulging in cake could be just as great as it was earlier tonight. And yet, in spite of this intense craving, if my desire to preserve my health were greater than my desire to eat cake, I would ultimately forego the cake for the sake of my physical wellbeing. Similarly, we are daily confronted with the choice of whether or not to engage in certain sinful behavior; many such temptations can be excruciatingly intense. But we will in the end make a decision one way or the other whether to resist or succumb to the temptation. Consequently, one of these desires, either for obedience or disobedience, must finally win out over the other. And whichever desire wins out is necessarily our strongest inclination, even if an opposing inclination initially appears strongest. Otherwise we would choose according to that different/opposite inclination, in which case it would prove itself to be the strongest inclination. The choice we make reveals what we truly desire most, in which direction our will is most strongly inclined. Again, as R.C. notes, a will that is equally inclined toward all possible choices is a will that cannot and will not choose. Of course, it is only by the spiritual regeneration wrought by the Holy Spirit that fallen man, who is spiritually and morally “dead in trespasses and sins…by nature [a child] of wrath,” can possess a genuine desire for obedience, and thus freely choose obedience over disobedience.
I have read your response and it certainly makes logical sense but I feel it fails to understand our responsibility. Our choices shape our desires. In fact, choosing and desiring are not mutually exclusive, they are heavily connected. My desire to do right grows stonger when I realize the benefits of those choices. Your desire to do wrong grows stronger when you continue to be willingly decieved and head down the path fo self-indulgent behaviour. Choice and desire are not mutually exclusive.
If a choice is not made with determination it can't be free. A choice can't be made at all without first determining that there is one available to make?
I agree. But RC Sproul just made an even bigger blunder. Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
The Bible says that God knows the imagination of the thoughts of our hearts..if that's the case which it is..then there's no way he doesn't know what we'll choose..since our choices ain't spontaneous and by default we can't choose Him without Him first choosing us..this also partly explains how He knows the future
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead!
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Now I share is a story which is a fact since it is my own story of salvation. I was atheist for 23 years. One day I thought what if I am wrong and there is 1 percent chance that God exists. I remember I had pain and I repeated this sentence: "God if you really exist, show me why you created human that created suffering in this world". God answered me and I realized that I am elected to deny myself and take the cross and follow Jesus christ and do the will of God for ever. At least for my case, predestination is obvious and it doesn't have conflict with free will. Since It was my free will to think about reality. It was my free will to set a 1 percent chance that god may exist and I should ask him to help me to tell me if he exists. Now use the template of the wedding feast parable that Jesus said. In that wedding, I was not even in that city and I was sinful but the king said to invite anyone including a blind person like me. At the time that they were calling people, they noticed that I am listening to the call by asking "why did you create human if you really exist" . That curious thinking and reasong which was my free will saved me. Thus, we conclude that there is no conflict between free will and predestination and both exists with no contradiction.
Interesting that the wonderfully talented and gifted RC says at 8mins following, that free will in the humanists rationale is to say that a human being would make a choice out of nothing and therefore the willing action (affect), has no (cause). Only God is the affect (being), that IS without causation (being), that is his eternal being, which then followed by HIS will, or The Will of God.
He's pointing out a fallacy of the humanist view of free will. You are absolutely correct in that God is the only uncaused cause. The reason for the existence of this view is that humanists refuse to carry their arguments to their logical downfall.
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead!
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
I remember before God shine HIS Marvelous light upon me, I was living a sinful Life In The flesh living a free will choice life because the Holy Spirit was NOT 🚫 in me. But now that I'VE BEEN SAVED for 26 years it's time for me to start walking in the light as he is in the light and then will have fellowship one with another as the BLOOD of JESUS CHRIST cleanse me from all sin. 1st John 1:7 And that is through the HOLY SPIRIT IN ME. And when I take UP my CROSS and DENY my fleshly self, Matthew 16:24 Greater is HE THAT IS IN ME, than he that is in the world 🌎 1st John 4:4 So for us to be that new creature in Christ where old things have all passed away but behold All THINGS BECOME NEW. 2st Corinthians 5:17 We NEED to DIE of our FLESH DAILY and walk in the light through the HOLY SPIRIT 👻 IN US BY DOING THE WILL OF GOD THE FATHER. ❤
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
+Patrick Leyerle Your comment - "All of Humanity is fallen. We need to be made alive by Christ. " My comment - Yes, all of humanity is fallen, but not to the extent that Calvinism teaches. Calvinism teaches spiritual annihilation, total inability, but the Bible teaches spiritual separation. Man still has the image of God in him and can still willfully respond by believing the gospel to be saved. Romans 1:19-21 - 19 Because that which may be known of God IS MANIFEST IN THEM; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; SO THAT THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE. 21 Because that, WHEN THEY KNEW GOD, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
If our choices are made purely spontaneously, without any prior inclination, without any prior disposition, in a sense what we are saying, is that there is no reason for the choice. That there is no motivation or motive for the choice. It just happens spontaneously. And if that is the way our choices operate, then we immediately face this problem. How could such a choice have any moral significance to it?
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
It's much deeper than what you wrote. It takes a very deep study of systematic theology to truly grasp God's sovereignty over man. We can agree to disagree. God bless you 🙏
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
The following exhortations by God would not have been given to man if man had no free will and was "incapable" of returning to God: Jeremiah 3:12 - Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, RETURN, thou backsliding Israel, saith the Lord; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever. Jeremiah 3:14 - RETURN, O faithless sons,' declares the LORD; 'For I am a master to you, And I will take you one from a city and two from a family, And I will bring you to Zion.' Jeremiah 3:22 - "RETURN, O faithless sons, I will heal your faithlessness." "Behold, we come to You; For You are the LORD our God. Malachi 3:7 - "From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from My statutes and have not kept them RETURN TO ME, AND I WILL RETURN TO YOU," says the LORD of hosts. "But you say, 'How shall we return?' Jeremiah 15:19 - Therefore, thus says the LORD, "IF YOU RETURN, THEN I WILL RESTORE YOU-- Before Me you will stand; And if you extract the precious from the worthless, You will become My spokesman. They for their part may turn to you, But as for you, you must not turn to them. Deuteronomy 4:30 - "When you are in distress and all these things have come upon you, in the latter days YOU WILL RETURN TO THE LORD your God and listen to His voice. Isaiah 31:6 - RETURN TO HIM from whom you have deeply defected, O sons of Israel. Isaiah 55:7 - Let the wicked forsake his way And the unrighteous man his thoughts; AND LET HIM RETURN TO THE LORD, And He will have compassion on him, And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon. Jeremiah 4:1 - If thou wilt RETURN, O Israel, saith the LORD, RETURN UNTO ME: and if thou wilt put away thine abominations out of my sight, then shalt thou not remove. Hosea 6:1 - COME, AND LET US RETURN UNTO THE LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up. Hosea 12:6 - THEREFORE TURN THOU TO THY GOD: keep mercy and judgment and wait on thy God continually. Hosea 14:1 - O Israel, RETURN UNTO THE LORD THY GOD; for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity. Zechariah 1:3 - Therefore say thou unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; TURN YE UNTO ME, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will turn unto you, saith the LORD of hosts. Joel 2:12 - "Yet even now," declares the LORD, "RETURN TO ME with all your heart, And with fasting, weeping and mourning; Job 22:23 - If thou RETURN to the Almighty, thou shalt be built up, thou shalt put away iniquity far from thy tabernacles. Lamentations 3:40 - Let us search and try our ways, and TURN AGAIN to the Lord. 2 Chronicles 15:4 - But when they in their trouble DID TURN UNTO THE LORD GOD of Israel, and sought him, HE WAS FOUND OF THEM. Psalm 78:34 - When He killed them, then they SOUGHT Him, And RETURNED and SEARCHED DILIGENTLY FOR GOD.
Unfortunately, your line of thinking is a logical fallacy that's as old as dirt: you cannot infer ability from an imperative. In other words, if you think about it, you'll realize that it's a fact: just because you see a person receive a command does not mean the person has the ability to obey the command. EG: A back-seat driver can yell "STOP THE CAR", but if the driver is drunk, he doesn't have the ability to stop the car. Or a crowd can yell to a trapped arson victim "GET OUT OF THE HOUSE", but if the victim can't get to the fire escape, they will die in fire. Those examples may appear extreme, but Martin Luther addressed precisely your points page 159-161 of "Bondage of the Will", and described it an essential truth of logical reasoning. He said to Erasmus: "Even grammarians and schoolboys on street corners know that nothing more is signified by verbs in the imperative mood than what ought to be done, and that what is done or can be done should be expressed by words in the indicative" ..and perhaps more specifically... "The passages of Scripture you cite are imperative; and they prove and establish nothing about the ability of man, but only lay down what is and what not to be done." p161 And of course, Luther wasn't the first to observe this truth. Aristotle (and many other philosophers before him) acknowledged this as well. Even the Bible acknowledges this truth: [+] Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil. (Jer 13:23) In conclusion, man has a sin nature. Because of his sin nature, he cannot help but desire sin. Just because we see commands for him to do otherwise does not mean he can. He needs his nature changed. He needs to be regenerated.
Salvation by Grace Through Faith - For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. That is what James 2:10 states, but we will use "your" words for this reply..."You" just exclaimed Damnation on Tim Foster...Pray tell what place does your statement place YOU in the eyes of God? My self I like to spend some Quality time in Romans (Mostly Romans 9 for this subject) but Truth can be found throughout the Scriptures and the TRUTH is this: Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Be blessed and have a Godly day (Don't condemn Folks to Damnation please...It's NOT Godly)
None of those texts contradict what Sproul is saying. Every single text you're citing was given to God's people. Not to become God's people but because that's God's will for His people. God breaks the chains that enslave us to sin in order that we become free of the power of sin and choose to obey Him.
The Pilgrim ACTS 16:29-31 29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, 30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED? 31 And they said, BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. The BIBLICAL answer to this question as clearly stated in this verse is simply BELIEVE. **The Reformer’s answer to this question is, “well actually sorry bro there’s actually nothing you can do you gotta be elected to believe first then God has to effectually call you and then He gives you the faith to believe.” If it was unconditional the answer would’ve been, “NOTHING. YOU’VE EITHER BEEN ELECTED OR YOU HAVEN’T.” But what was the answer? There was a CONDITION. What was the condition? THEY HAD TO BELIEVE. The condition was FAITH in Jesus Christ. Clearly a NT passage that asserts man has the freewill to make a conscious decision for Christ.
The Pilgrim John does not refute that. ...According to John 1:12,13 do you have to receive Him first in order to be given power to become His son, or does He give you power to be His son first so you can then receive Him? Does He give power to them that believe or does He give power so you can then believe afterwards? JOHN 1:12,13 12 BUT AS MANY AS RECEIVED HIM, TO THEM GAVE HE POWER TO BECOME THE SONS OF GOD, EVEN TO THEM THAT BELIEVE ON HIS NAME: 13 WHICH WERE BORN, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but OF GOD. **The born again process is not of the will of man but of God. Faith happens BEFORE and not during. Regeneration is 100% God and 0% man. It’s clear that the regeneration in verse 13 happens only to those in verse 12 who RECEIVED Him.
Sprouls said, " if our choices are determined by our personal desires" how then are we free. This is having an assumption that we only have one desire in our hearts, but in reality, humans have many, and mostly conflicting desires, most of them over good and evil deeds. Desires may have enslave you to do certain things, but to which desire are you going to follow will need some hard weighing of possible resulting events that you'll eventually find it more beneficial to you. And man doesn't always choose evil over good, we sometimes choose good, meaning we are both capable of doing good and evil deeds. Free will occurs when you are in need which among your desires must you comply to. You doesn't even need to have a belief in Christ or recognise any god to feel the urge to do good. People just sometimes do good or bad things.
according to calvinists freewill just means you can do what you will. the rub, however, is that calvinists say human will is evil so that anything we want to do will be evil. in other words, you cannot choose to do anything that is good. it is a question of whether you accept this wacky definition of "freewill" or not.
Please read my response to RC Sproul’s “fruitless deeds of darkness-philosophy- that needed to be exposed (Eph 5:11)”because it’s even worse than that. Two have already stopped becoming christians. They previously commented on this site and found the lecture to be way too much for them to just even come to the simple knowledge of God through Jesus while the other felt hopelessness. Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” We don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
If we mean by free will that fallen man has the ability to chose as he wants, then of course he has free will. If we mean by that term that man in his fallen state has the moral power and ability to choose righteousness, then free will is far to grandiose a term to apply to fallen man. Every choice that we make is free, and every choice that we make is determined, but what determines it is me, and this we call self-determination. It is caused by something else. Determinism means that things happen to me strictly by virtue of external forces. In addition to external forces that are factors in determining what happens to us, there are also internal forces that are determining factors. If my choices flow out of my disposition, and out of my desires, and if my actions are an effect that have causes and reasons behind them, then my personal desire, in a very real sense, determines my personal choices. If my desires determine my choice, how then can I be free? Self determination is not the denial of freedom, but the essence of freedom. For the self to be able to determine, its own choices, is what free will is all about. To be able to choose what you want. The problem with sinners, is that sinners can do, what the sinner wants to do. Where is the problem? The problem, is in the root of the desires of the heart. When we talk about moral ability, we talk about the ability to be righteous as well as to be sinful. Man was created with the ability to be righteous, or to be sinful, but man has fallen, and because he is, he no longer has the ability in and of himself to be perfect, because he is born in sin.
hyper- calvanists also have a problem _Adam and Eve must have been created with the power of choice, or God would not have given them a command and punished them for disobeying it!!
'Knowing" that Adam and Eve had "Free Will"...Why did God Place the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil in the center of the garden? The ONLY logical answer is that God placed it there because He KNEW they would eat of it..."Free Will" had no more to do with it that the nutrients in the soil. Both the tree and the planting of it were "God Will" (pfft at "free will") You see the Serpent had what Adam and Eve did NOT have prior to eating of the fruit...Cunning. The Serpent FOOLED them, and God knew ahead of time that he would. Sooo, that brings us to the "Why" Because we are saved through GRACE!! We are NOT saved through Intelligence, wishes wills or wants or "Free Will" We are saved by the Mercy of God. God saved me...from me.
But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” That thar is Romans 9:20 Sir That Bible of yours is good reading :)
I have 2 questions: 1. "Because he (man) has evil inclination, a desire to sin, he sins". This, sounds more to me like another kind of determinism. After the human's fall, we are unable to be perfect and keep sinning; and in my understanding it looks like human is in fact *determined* to have greater desire to sin rather than obey God (by whoever, I don't want to imagine). My question is, even before humans are "determined" to sin, how about Adam and Eve? What then we call the ability to trust God rather than trust yourself and eat the Forbidden Fruit? Isn't it "free will" as how the philosophical world understands it? Obviously Adam and Eve were not a sinner before the fall, so were they able to be free from the "sinful determinism" and chose to trust God instead? If so, then was God sovereign even over Adam and Eve's decision to disobey Him? Did God allow Adam and Eve the ability to trust and love Him back? Was the act of creating the Forbidden Fruit and letting humans sin actually according to God's plan? 2. If Adam and Even really were abled to have "free will" to choose to trust or disobey God, will God return that ability to us once we will be raised from the death to meet Him in Heaven? Greetings from Vietnam. I'm not trying to make any war here, just some honest thoughts of mine after watching the whole lecture.
Those are some deep questions.and your first one is probably one of the biggest one in the bible... Check out Pastor John Popper on this topic..he's done a great study on the origins of sin.. Basically the Devil affected the will of Adam and Eve..by his words ..he inclined them to desire to sin.. John piper traces it further back.. because the Devil was the cause of Adam and Eves sin...but he looks at the deeper question of what caused the Devils sin... There's no clear concrete answer..he does present a good one though... In terms of will believers be returned to a state like where adam and Eve was..the answer is clearly no...we will not be like how Adam and Eve was.. We will be new creatures...ones that don't need to reproduce like how humans do now.. We won't get involved marriage...so it's presumed we won't have the desire... It's all speculation about what believers will be..but by all indicators..we will not be like Adam and Eve.....the potential for sin won't be there...
When RC Sproul was asked the same question as to why Adam and Eve disobeyed God before they ever sinned? His answer was “I don’t know.” Meaning, RC Sproul doesn’t know why Adam and Eve despite having no sinful nature before they disobeyed God had chosen to disobey. Simply put, RC Sproul had a prejudicial belief based on knowledge in philosophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, RC Sproul will have to contend with the prevailing atheistic philosophy that “if man has freewill, there is no God.” Therefore, RC Sproul’s lecture about freewill is really foolish. Allow me to respond to his lecture… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
So in other words R.C Sproul is stating the word freewill or the word voluntary should not be in the scriptures. There are more written infallible word of God a.k.a scriptures where the word "freewill" is used. Leviticus 22:18 K.J.V Speak unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them, Whatsoever he be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that will offer his oblation for all his vows, and for all his FREEWILL offerings, which they will offer unto the LORD for a burnt offering; Leviticus 22:18 KJV Dictionary Definition: freewill FREEWILL', n. 1. The power of directing our own actions without restraint by necessity or fate. 2. Voluntariness; spontaneousness. av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/freewill.html Eduardo Evangelista Colossians 2:18-19 K.J.V Let no man beguile you of your reward in a VOLUNTARY humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. Colossians 2:18-19 KJV Dictionary Definition: voluntariness VOL'UNTARINESS, n. The state of being voluntary or optional. voluntary VOL'UNTARY, a. L. voluntarius, from voluntas, will, from volo. 1. Acting by choice or spontaneously; acting without being influenced or impelled by another. 2. Free, or having power to act by choice; not being under restraint; as, man is a voluntary agent. 3. Proceeding from choice or free will. That sin or guilt pertains exclusively to voluntary action, is the true principle of orthodoxy. 4. Willing; acting with willingness. She fell to lust a voluntary prey. 5. Done by design; purposed; intended. If a man kills another by lopping a tree, here is no voluntary murder. 6. Done freely, or of choice; proceeding from free will. He went into voluntary exile. He made a voluntary surrender. 7. Acting of his own accord; spontaneous; as the voluntary dictates of knowledge. 8. Subject to the will; as the voluntary motions of an animal. Thus the motion of a leg or an arm is voluntary, but the motion of the heart is involuntary. A voluntary escape, in law, is the escape of a prisoner by the express consent of the sheriff. Voluntary jurisdiction, is that which is exercised in doing that which no one opposes; as in granting dispensations, &c. Voluntary affidavit or oath, is one made in an extra-judicial matter. Voluntary waste, is that which is committed by positive acts. VOL'UNTARY, n. 1. One who engages in any affair of his own free will; a volunteer. In this sense, volunteer is now generally used. 2. In music, a piece played by a musician extemporarily, according to his fancy. In the Philosophical Transactions, we have a method of writing voluntaries, as fast as the musician plays the notes. This is by a cylinder turning under the keys of the organ. 3. A composition for the organ. av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/voluntariness.html
@@DarkPa1adin You calvinists love to talk about the DECREES of God how about (Ezra 7:13 K.J.V)? Ezra 7:13 I make a DECREE, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm, which 👉are MINDED of THEIR OWN FREEWILL H5069👈 to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee. K.J.V H5069 - nĕdab (Aramaic) H5069 - נְדַב Transliteration: nĕdab (Aramaic)Pronunciation: ned·av' Part of Speech: verb Root Word (Etymology): Corresponding to נָדַב (H5068)TWOT Reference: 2848 Outline of Holy Scriptures Usage: to volunteer, offer freely (Ithpael) to volunteer to give freely, offer freely KJV Translation Count: 4x The KJV translates Strongs H5069 in the following manner: freely offered (1x), freewill offering (1x), offering willingly (1x), minded of their own freewill (1x).Strong's Definitions: נְדַב nᵉdab, ned-ab'; (Aramaic) corresponding to H5068; be (or give) liberal(-ly):-(be minded of...own) freewill (offering), offer freely (willingly). Isn't the DECREE of the LORD in (Ezra 7:13 K.J.V) that The LORD is DECREEING those mention in (Ezra 7:13 K.J.V) that they know that the LORD has DECREE that they have FREEWILL to FREELY VOLUNTEER to go up to Jerusalem & that they were NOT determined by God to VOLUNTEER to go up to Jerusalem?
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself included) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You (we) don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
@@DarkPa1adin Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself included) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You (we) don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
I can understand how the illusion of acting freely exists in every moment (to sin or not to sin) but I would argue that the circumstances and factors that led to the moments where you feel as though you have the ability to freely act are violated upon by a cascade of events and circumstances that you were not able to freely choose. For example some one born in Iran did not choose the location in which they were born, they did not choose the language that they speak, they did not choose their family, they did not choose the school they were born into, and therefore could did not choose all of the experiences that led them to a point of adopting a set a views that resulted in them becoming a member of the Taliban and committing atrocities. This person was in a causal chain of events that preceded them and effected the outcome of their life. I can’t see how this is free in any capacity. Even to the most trivial decisions they are all tied to the intention predicated by a host of actions that came before them.
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
@@papabear887 sir, this is a Wendy’s. Just kidding, I wrote this comment 9 months ago when I was a Christian but now don’t find the arguments in favor of God sufficient which may simplify a lot of the mental gymnastics you seem to be jumping through to make an all powerful, knowing, and mighty God have to jump through to make free will coherent. Let’s back up and give some reasons as to why a belief in God is even justified to begin with?
@@JTOG94Thanks for your response (seriously). I posted my disagreements against RC Sproul’s assertions in your comments as in all the others for two reasons. 1) I am curious what would people respond back with to my disagreements with RC Sproul (a supposedly authoritative figure in calvinism) why even the issue of freewill is something to be philosophically scrutinized when the matter is religious 2) My other purpose is in the realm that if man has no freewill, who should be held accountable for actions done against humanity when evil was perpetrated. If I understand your position correctly, you were once a christian but no longer holds that belief. I have then no issue with you as my postings were meant for religious people especially calvinists. To each his own. Thanks again.
@@papabear887 I’m going to reread your comment a bit later today, I was rushed yesterday and didn’t fully comprehend. Still interested in what you have to say about the matter.
GOODLY FRUIT COMES FROM NURTURE OF THE TREE NOOOT THE NATURE OF THE TREE AS THE NATURE OF THE TREE IS TO GROW N BLOW N BLOOM YET WITHOUT NURTURE THE TREE DOES NOT GROW! GOD BLESS LIFE! THE SOWER OF THE TREE DETERMINES THE GROWTH N STRENGTH N LONGEVITY OF IT! 🌹🌞🛡🗡🌏👑🌹👸🎁🌿🌊
@@robinl6659 A TREE IS PLANTED, ROOTED, N STILL, FOR THE TREE TO GROW N BLOOM THE NURTURING OF THE SOIL OF THE SUNLIGHT OF THE RAIN MUST BE OR THE TREE IS ONLY STILL N IS NOT FRUITFUL TILL THE TREE ROT! THE NATURE OF THE TREE IS TO BE STILL, IT IS NURTURE THAT GIVES THE TREE MOVEMENT IN IT'S STANDING! NURTURE OVER NATURE OR NOTHING BLOOMS THUS NO FRUIT! DO YOU WATER N WEED YOUR VEGETABLE GARDEN OR FLOWER GARDEN? THUS YOUR NURTURING GIVES YOUR GARDEN LIFE THAT THE GARDEN SUSTAIN YOUR LIFE! GOD BLESS LIFE ALWAYS!🙏🌹🌞🛡🗡🌏
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead!
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
I have two major contentions with the content of this lecture: first is in the substance of the discussion itself, with respect to free will; the second is in the apparent approach that was taken to assessing the topic. 1. First, the topic of free will is not exhausted without a thorough discussion about what constitutes the "self," or the notion of the self. When Sproul says "What determines my choice is me, and this is what we call self-determination" he hasn't thoroughly detailed what constitutes the self. Consequently, the conclusion of free will that he arrives at is not satisfying to the average person looking for free will, upon further inspection. When we have desires, we experience them; they _happen_ to us. We don't choose the desires we have, and Sproul acknowledges this. As he recognizes, the inclinations we have have a causal relationship to the choices we make; or in other words, the choices we make are caused by our inclinations or desires. We do not choose these desires. Anyone can test this on themselves. When you have the desire to do something, or even a thought about something, it just appears to you, you just become conscious of it. Being that this is not something you choose, and is responsible for your choice, where is the freedom in that? This is not the kind of free will anyone is looking for or satisfied with, and it just seems to be playing disingenuous games with language. So, on the point of what constitutes the self, what does it mean to say that _you_ choose something? If you don't choose your desires, and your desires cause your choices, then the logical entailment of that leaves you with the same determined conclusion that you actually have no say in the matter. You are simply experiencing the desires and the choices occurring to you. What else could the self be with respect to choice? There's no room left here for a "self" that has any kind of free will in a meaningful sense. To say that one freely chooses as a self, but for that self to simply be a being that experiences desires and choices occurring, is not to provide any kind of freedom of the will, in a libertarian sense, that anyone is looking for. 2. There seems to be an issue here with how this topic is approached. This isn't being approached as an openminded philosophical investigation. These are the kind of complications that arise when someone is looking at a concept through the lens of theology or religiosity. When someone approaches a concept, like free will, with a preconceived worldview that is bound by the presuppositions of dogma, one is limited by those in considering other potentially true and valid explanations. So, when someone approaches this concept with an already established religious bias, it prevents them from considering all the relevant aspects pertaining to the concept, and leads them to conclusions which are detrimental to individuals in groups based on the dogmatic limitations. There are already philosophical labels for some of these concepts. What Sproul is offering is what is known in philosophy as compatiblism. Compatibilism is the idea that essentially redefines free will to mean that a choice is free as long as someone is capable of making that choice without any external force preventing them from doing so. This is a category mistake in the discussion of Free Will as people intend to convey it with respect to libertarian free will on one end and determinism on the other. To say that your choice is "free" as long as nothing is preventing you from making the choice, is not satisfying if you aren't actually freely choosing what it is that you want. And this is never resolved by Sproul. 3. As a supplemental point, there seems to be this fallacious appeal to a need for some kind of free will as a moral solution. The fact that a tenable moral structure is desired, is not a substantiation of free will. The fact that someone would like to have a solid framework for free will to support moral concepts does not itself give support to any morality. It also does not require that there must be any kind of free will. Objective morality is a concept that needs to be substantiated in its own right, and that is also another category which is left wanting.
@@iacoponefurio1915 What? Because I engaged with the substance of the video? I didn't write any more than the speaker said. How does that make me any of the things you said? I get engagement with many people on a ton of topics like this. Why do you think what you said is a good thing to say, or reasonable at all?
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
The error of his analysis is that he begins with 'spontaneous free will.' But free will in not just knee jerk spontaneity but more routinely by 'considered decision making.' Thereafter he goes off the rails in his argument. The fallen nature of corruption does not negate free will. It is just corrupt free will which is done every day by all people. He starts from a straw man argument. then attacks his straw man.
I completely agree with you. But RC Sproul made it even worse. Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
"Sovereignty" and "will" need to be properly defined and understood. Sovereignty is "Supreme power and autonomy". That does NOT mean that it is always exercised or used down to the minutest detail, even though it could be. Will is "something that is desired or ordained". God is not willing that any should perish. "Believe, Choose, Repent, Accept, IF", etc., etc.
Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Very thankful to God for RC Sproul,and John MacAuther both for pulling me out of false doctrine.
Praise God
Now reject pre millennialism
Yep two of the best. Another goodie is Dr Barnhouse. God bless ❤
@MaryMyers-nd8uw ❤️❤️
Thanks to whomever puts these treasures on RUclips. I am blessed. We need to keep this perspective alive in the faith communities.
Ligonier Ministries put them up. 😂
@@mitchellc4 give up dude! Or at least listen to the sermons where you put the same commentaries over and over! And I don't want the replies you already replied to me on the other videos over the last years. You're following a cult! Open your eyes and repent of your dogma!
That would be Ligonier ministries
@@mitchellc4 ....but what about 1Jn 5:20
And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
The Authorized Version
@@mitchellc4 You don't understand the Godhead (Trinity). They are one and the same yet distinct. 1John 5:7 Authorized Version
I met Dr. Sproul twice; 1987 and 1995. He was gracious both times and we had a good opportunity to chat about meaningful things after i heard him teach. I said “ I may have read too many of your books to the tune of about 30 titles of yours. Is that a problem?” He said “yes, it means you are a glutton for punishment.” Lol😂 I truly miss and loved him much and give glory to God for how much he was used to point me to Christ.
Wow...he said that, but it makes sense, it really shows his humility...which is perhaps his most attractive attribute.
LOL - your punishment was truly a privilege then!
😆😆😆
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Glutton for punishment; perhaps; or, perhaps you're one who God loves, for God chastises those whom he loves (Hebrews 12:6).
It has taken me 34 years to actually take up and read the Word of God for Truth....rather than rely on my own understanding......and I've come to the realization that this Book is to be read as it should.....to learn Gods understanding......to not put my own "self righteous thoughts" into Gods understanding of his Word....for I am a sinner.....and I am in need of The Saviour. I use to think by picking and choosing bible verses I have never thoroughly read thru, would make myself sound and feel cool. I was so wrong.....So much Truth has me made fall on my knees.....and exalt God on high.....Having Bible studies now to when I was younger has changed dramatically. My younger cousins would read a verse, and take it waaaaaay outta context. If this was me 15 years ago, I wouldn't have caught it. But now that I'm thoroughly reading the Word Of God, I can help them stay within the context of the verses. I am by no means a teacher, for I myself am still learning. Just to see how I would interpret a verse from long time ago, to now, really shows a big difference in my studying of Gods word. I am really glad that I am able to help my younger cousins right the wrongs I used to do when I was fumbling thru scripture. I heard about Charles Spurgeon thru a Paul Washer sermon, and well; ill be getting his book. I ran by a quote of his, "visit many books, but live in the bible." So very True. The word of God has helped me alot. OT, and NT in perfect harmony with one another. Pointing to Christ Jesus who in which is in the center of it. I don't deny I am a sinner.....but I won't willfully fall back into it. Sinner Saved thru the Blood of Christ. Calls us all to repentance. Abide in him. RIP Dr. Sproul.
Don’t sell yourself short. Even the best of teachers are still learning!
You just need the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey everything what is written. You don’t need calvinism or any -isms.
Unbeknown to listeners of his philosophy lecture, it’s full of set up and switch and bait methodology.
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Them he immediately asks this question,
“ How can a man be free when he already determined the choices he made?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concluded,
“Man has no freewill” because man has already determined the choices he made. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same thing with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question follows,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul
must conclude,
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded His choosing thus precluded any freewill.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically then and now writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
AGAIN, You don’t need calvinism or any -isms. You just need the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that is written in the Scriptures.
@@papabear887You should listen to yourself .
“ Trust and obey all that is written in the Scriptures .”
Why don’t you then , instead of twisting verses out of context to make Gods Word say what suits your ideas of what God is like ?
If the Father in heaven does not draw a person to the Son , the Lord Jesus Christ , no one can come to Him . John 6;44
“For by grace through faith ye are saved , and that not of yourself ; it is the gift of God ; not of works lest anyone should boast .”
Will you still disbelieve the Holy Bible ?
Do you think you rejected Satan and chose to allow Almighty God to save you ?
Do you have that natural inclination within you to overcome your sinful , fallen nature and seek the Lord and His righteousness ?
The Bible says you don’t !
Job 22:21-22 NKJV
21 “Now acquaint yourself with Him, and be at peace;
Thereby good will come to you.
22 Receive, please, instruction from His mouth,
And lay up His words in your heart.
2 Corinthians 5:17 NKJV
17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.
“But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
1 John 1:7-9 ESV
All means all brother. Prior to coming to Jesus we recognize we are sinners once we’re cleansed He removes it… as far as the east is from the west according to Psalm 103:12
It’s part of the renewal of the mind. Changing the way you view yourself and what you call yourself. Your brand new. Walk in that!!
Love RC! He’s in glory now. But I must say, I look forward to meeting him! Solid food, for sure!
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
@@papabear887I was skeptical of these particular video. I will look more into it myself, but you are a breath of fresh air concerning Scripture and what it actually wants us to know. All we need to do is rely on Christ and we have won already. God bless.
Does anyone get Mr. Roger's Neighborhood vibes from the camera quality and set up? It's so comforting ☺️
I do but first I need to see him change into a cardigan and more comfortable shoes after entering the room. 😍
Lol! Yes
😂
Lmbo, you're telling your age. 😅
What a comfort is the understanding of the absolute truth which is the Sovereignty of our triune LORD!
What is a triune Lord? Jesus Christ is Lord. He is God the Son. The fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him, but He is one Person.
@@smeatonlighthouse4384 Notice how LORD is spelled, then comment. Triune God would be another way to write it.
I asked the Good Shepherd about the subject of “free will”.
His answer was, “None of My sheep have free will.”
I am forever praising and believing Jesus Christ and this is pleasing to God.
Not so comforting for those predestined to hell ... hmmmm ... I'm so thankful I know the true nature and character of God. He allows us the CHOICE ...
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Ugh! This is sooooo good. My understanding of free will and how it pertains to my faith and the mechanisms to the evils of this world have expanded greatly. I cannot wait to follow up with “Mans Radical Fallenness”
@@mitchellc4 bruh
@@mitchellc4 Repent, Jesus is God.
@@mitchellc4 What does any of this have to do with the initial comment? More importantly your gospel is a false gospel and what you say is heresy. Repent and believe the true gospel. Jesus is God!
@@mitchellc4 1qq
@@mitchellc4
Jehovan Witnesses are a cult, a literal cult.
I will never understand how he was able to teach so eloquently without referring to notes!
Do you see this question mark above my head? I get the feeling that you just took a shot, but it missed because I don't get what you're trying to say.
So, you are attempting to say that R.C. Sproul is teaching "human wisdom" as opposed to scripture? Where?
Well, if he approaches the subject from a philosophical perspective (and he does, of course), that's because he has studied so much philosophy as a theologian. And I appreciate your prediction and assertion of my own thinking, but that is quite a dangerous task given that you have not read anything about my theology or my perspective.
If you would care to have a Biblical, theological discussion on the condition of the human will, then I am entirely willing and able to do so.
While we are “free” to do what we want to do, we are bound in what we want to do by our evil nature and desires (Romans 8:7): we may DO as we please, but we cannot PLEASE as we please. That is to say, we cannot use our will to shape our nature, but rather, it is our nature that determines how we will use our wills. God has given us a will, but that will is most certainly not “free,” (that is to say "autonomous," free of any outside force) after all, the bible says very often, and in many different ways, that we are utterly bound in sin and absolutely incapable of submitting to God (Romans 8:7); in our flesh, we cannot please God (Romans 8:5-8); we cannot understand the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:14; John 3:3, 10-13; 14:17); we cannot seek God (Romans 3:11); we cannot believe in God (John 6:44, 65; 10:26; 12:37-41); we cannot do anything good at all (Job 15:14-16; Proverbs 20:9; Jeremiah 13:23; Romans 3:10-18); we are utterly captive to sin (John 8:34; Romans 6:20; Titus 3:3); we are prisoners of the devil and constrained to do his desires (John 8:43-45, 2 Timothy 2:25-26; 1 John 5:19); every impulse of the thoughts of our hearts is only evil continually (Genesis 6:5), and so every action we perform, no matter how “good” we think it is, is actually evil, nothing but “filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6).
Ever since the fall, we are not free to do anything good whatsoever; salvation is solely an act of God’s will (John 6:44), and we can only begin to do good as the Spirit gives us a new nature (Ezekiel 36:26-27). We are only free when the Son sets us free (John 8:36).
There is much more that I could say at this point, but I am hesitant to write a novella without first hearing your own views of the freedom of the will.
Leonard,
It's true that many (if not most?) within Christendom have aligned themselves along sectarian lines, calling themselves by their favorite teachers where one will call themselves a "Calvinist," while others will call themselves a "Wesleyan," "Arminian," or whatever, and in all the milieu of competing voices, one gets the impression that they have all variously aligned themselves for the sole purpose of infighting within Christendom. The truth is, I came to the understanding that I have of the Bible without the aid of any of these teachers, although, admittedly, I do enjoy the writings of Owen, Charnock, Calvin, Edwards, Luther, and I do listen to Sproul, MacArthur, and Washer just to name a few... But I came to their teaching, not because I began there with a presupposition, but because I wound up there after many years of my own study, reading the Bible, as well as any theologian that I could get my hands on, until I found writers who taught what I felt was in accordance to the authorial intent of the Bible. I may be wrong, but I have never been given any exegetical grounds to believe otherwise.
The condition of the will of man seems to be nothing but a battleground these days, where infighting has caused very much damage to the church, and at the heart of the argument is the very nature of God, that is, His sovereignty as it regards the salvation of man. One of the biggest problems dividing the church is the false dichotomy being created between the requirement for man to believe for salvation on the one hand, and God's choice in salvation on the other - there are many teachers who would say that the Bible teaches an either/or approach to salvation where the one camp emphatically states that "we must believe in order to be saved" while ignoring God's sovereignty over salvation, while the other camp states "God chooses who will be saved" while ignoring the requirement for man to believe.
What people in both of these camps need to realize is that the Bible does not present an "either/or" proposition between these two ideas. The truth is a "both/and" scenario: We must believe in order to be saved (Acts 16:30-31), and it is God who chooses who will be saved and grants him the ability to believe (John 6:44, Acts 13:48); if you are willing (Isaiah 1:19), it is because God has made you willing.
As to your suggestion - Romans 2:29 is a verse that I have used with my students in teaching the necessity of repentance. The true child of God is not the one who seeks approval by his outward working and keeping of the law, but rather the true child of God is the one who seeks approval from God by obedience which is worked within him by the Spirit.
If the term "unconditional election" is offensive, call it a chicken, what we call a particular teaching is irrelevant, what is important is the doctrine that the Bible teaches.
Although there are 5 different ways in which the word "election" is used in scripture, John 6 and Acts 13 are specifically referring to God's election of certain individuals to salvation. God, before the foundation of the world, chose to make certain individuals the objects of His unmerited favor or special grace (Mark 13:20, Ephesians 1:4-5, Revelation 13:8, Revelation 17:8). These individuals from every tribe, tongue and nation were chosen by God for adoption, not because of anything they would do but because of His sovereign will (Romans 9:11-13, Romans 9:16, Romans 10:20, 1 Corinthians 1:27-29, 2 Timothy 1:9, John 5:21). God could have chosen to save all men (He certainly has the power and authority to do so), and He could have chosen to save no one (He is under no obligation to save anyone). He instead chose to save some and leave others to the consequences of their sin (Exodus 33:19, Deuteronomy 7:6-7, Romans 9:10-24, Acts 13:48, 1 Peter 2:8) as an everlasting testament to His justice against sin.
John 10:26 - "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep."
Belief is predicated on whether or not you are one of God’s sheep, not the other way around; note that He doesn’t say “you are not of My sheep because you do not believe.”
I'm grateful for the RC Sproul, the camera/recording crew for giving us this lecture in some random room.
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
I feel so thankful for his teaching this morning
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
I had the privilege of sitting under Dr. Sproul's teachings at Reformed Theological Seminary back in the day. I did not realize the level of scholarly insight he had at the time. He, along with Dr. Tim Keller, had a large impact on my christian faith.
Freewill ,what is Freewill? Abused of Freedom is what gets us in bondage. Thank God He provides a way to behold Holy Freedom again with our God. Jesus our redemer. Thanks RC. You have done well. Gm
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!
Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings!
Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
RSV
Only-monos
God-theos
Monos theos
Monotheism
The Father
Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)!
Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God!
Jesus has a God!
Jesus died!
God can’t die!
God raised Jesus from the dead!
One of the benefits of RUclips. Unfortunately this kind of intimate setting is almost a thing of the past.
I miss this type of setting as a young believer way back when. Today too many conferences panel discussions where only select personalities are on display and where a large audience can only become involved by getting on a line , given a mic in order to ask one of the great gurus for an opinion on the subject at hand. For me these are really the good ole days. Sproul at his best. The philosopher- theologian of scriptural truth. Great memories indeed!
Thank you for all these old video. Very edifying and so helpful. Praise the Lord.
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Gracias por los subtítulos al español! Extraordinaria presentación de un tema bastante complicado. Sin dudas RC fue un gran maestro.
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!
Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings!
Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
RSV
Only-monos
God-theos
Monos theos
Monotheism
The Father
Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)!
Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God!
Jesus has a God!
Jesus died!
God can’t die!
God raised Jesus from the dead!
Alow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately asks this question,
“How can a man be free when he already determined the choices he made?”
Therfore, RC Sproul concluded,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices he made. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, then RC Sproul must conclude the same thing about God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Speoul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is
determined.’
Then the immediate question follows,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude,
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded His choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically bow and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism or any -isms. You only need the Scriotures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey completely what’s writtenin Scriptures.
The Lord granted me salvation and that moment I KNEWwho He was!! How marvelous how powerful how merciful how wonderful too much too big that my mind cannot even imagine. And there’s no chance I would’ve turned that down: so I repented and picked up my cross from that day forth:
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
One of the best lectures I have ever heard, RC Sprouls is the man
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
The fear of God is wisdom! Job 28:28, in Him our will becomes the Will of the Father's. My food is to do the will of Him that sent me and finish His work. John 4:34. Great video thank you!
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!
Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings!
Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
RSV
Only-monos
God-theos
Monos theos
Monotheism
The Father
Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)!
Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God!
Jesus has a God!
Jesus died!
God can’t die!
God raised Jesus from the dead!
@@mitchellc4 Holiness is required of you. Hebrews 12;14. Abide in Him. John 15.
There is no time left GOD knows the heart of every man and nothing is hid from HIM. The WORD is our TRUTH. Luke 12:3-5.
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
@@papabear887 Do you obey Jesus Christ when he says: sin no more?
Or do you believe the Living God when He says do right and you will be accepted? May Pappa bear know the Word of Yahweh and not a mere man shalom.
@@truthlighthouse1717Yes , I do. Yeshua (Jesus) delivered me from my known sins back in May 4, 2007 and I have not lived in those sins EVER again. Just as Jesus said in John 8:36, “ So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed!”, I am a witness to it.
My fight is against false doctrines espoused in all -isms, including calvinism, reformed theology. This is not personal to RC Sproul or any calvinists and redormed theologians. I hope to God that He forgave them.
Ephesians 5:11 says, “ Take no part in the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them-“
My hope is to atleast expose philosophy, empty deception, traditions of men, basic principles of the wrold, man made commands and teachings, and false humility that does nothing to stop indulgences of the flesh (Colossians 2).
I have already encountered two individuals in RC Sproul’s freewill lecture that have stopped being a christian.
Thanks Dr Sproul. This enriches me much. God bless you.
I want to make sure when you stated that “it enriches you so much” that you understood RC Sproul’s syllogism.
He said, “every choice man makes is free AND every choice man makes is determined.”
Then he asks this question right after that,
How can man be free when the choices he made were determined by himself?
Therefore, according to RC Sproul’s logic, “man has no freewill” because man determined the reason or lack thereof or the desired out outcome for the choice.
Now using the same argument RC Sproul uses,
Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.
How then can God be free when the choices He made were determined by Himself alone?
Therefore, according to RC Sproul’s syllogism,
GOD MUST NOT HAVE FREEWILL as He determined the reason or lack thereof or the desired outcome for the choice!!!!!
@@papabear887triggered wackjob 😅😅😅😅you can't handle truth you are desperate to whine and complain all over the Internet 😅
Even though we may not agree to his thoughts, it can give us additional insight of how other people think.
@@tanparapal1963 it has nothing to do with thought. only spirit can reveal this essential truth of reality you're arrogance in assuming your freedom from god means you have that forever, without repentance..freedom FROM God. all are born separated and the freedom humans seek and never find is evil and disastrous. that's why it's so important to put into perspective. this is the only reality there is and your imaginary self righteous self sufficient self promoting reality is an incompetent delusion.😢
@@QuakerTakerThere you are again. Jesus loves you so much that He reads your comments and takes them seriously especially among the community of believers. I hope you are doing well.
Thank you for this! It's very easy to understand the way he explains everything!
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
You are actually insane and make no sense. You would be better off trying to convert people to Christianity, than try to make Christians doubt their faith.@@papabear887
Thank you Pastor John🙏 I am in a Protestant church and i dont agree with how they preach baptism. After me and my husband started bible study with WBS, World bible school, it all became clear. You are a man of God and i Thank the Lord for blessing us with someone that teaches nothing but the scriptures!!!
Please pray 🙏 for my children and I
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
I hope this helps you and your children.
Always remember first and foremost Jesus has done everything we need for eternal life with Him, and Jesus is offereing His free gift to every single human being He created, and each one of us have two choices, either we accept His free gift of eternal life with Him, or we reject it and spend eternity without Him. Accepting Jesus now means one becomes His Bride, friend, servant, and His Holy Spirit lives within us, and we have a real and personal relationship with our Heavenly Father God, Christ Jesus, Holy Spirit. and since each one of us either have a personal relationship with Jesus or rejecting Him we do not, how can one have a personal relationship with someone else without being free to choose everything we think, feel, say and do? I freely choose to accept Jesus as my Lord, God, King, sand Saviour, and through His Holy Spirit living within me and guiding me, i am following Jesus and communing with Jesus and worshipping Jesus, all day long every day. Praise Jesus.
I agree completely with you. RC Sproul however had done something beyond “fruitless that needed to be exposed (Ephesians 5:11).”
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Eh, that's not what RC is really saying here
This is excellent. I have not heard anyone explain the free will better than what Sproul has done.
LeadingEd Did you notice he referenced Edwards and Augustine and fallen man more than the scriptures?
Did he even use any scripture?
Poor explanation on free will.
How could this be excellent without the Word of God? 🤔
Aaron Pilkey God gave us minds for a reason!
Andrew Boone Yes you’re right we have a mind or a reason and He also gave us freewill for a reason.
You can’t use your mind if you don’t have freewill.
We’re not robots.
We have a mind exactly as you say I agree.
Minds allow us to reason.
We can’t reason without freewill.
*Tell me how do you reason with someone with no freewill?*
ISAIAH 1:18
18 COME NOW, AND LET US REASON TOGETHER, SAITH THE LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
If man has no freewill then is God just wanting to reason with HIMSELF?
@@apilkey The reason he references these men is because they were well versed in the scriptures.
Brad Well what does being “well versed” mean?
Does that mean they can quote and reference scripture well?
There’s a massive difference between being able to reference passages and actually being able to understand said passages.
If being “well versed” in the scriptures included having understanding of what the scriptures actually mean then those men were terribly versed in the scriptures.
I love listening to rc sproul teach
That was teaching? He didn’t explain where desire/inclination comes from. If he can’t explain where desire/inclination arise then he hasn’t explained a single thing. The “devil”', “fallen state” are as much a non answer to origin of our desires as “god”.
@@itneywhat our desires come from our hearts. The desires we have are from a fallen heart and nature which we were given by adam our representative in the garden.
Our desires are from our natural fallen state.
To put it this way God places us in the family we are born in. He gave us all our senses and we start desiring evil from a fallen state that is not upright and good.
So in short our desires come from within ourselves when we experience the good things Gof has given us and we make them filthy in the eyes of God.
God created Good. Anything outside of that standard of Good is evil.
@@itneywhat hope that made sense.
Our desire comes from ourselves.
It's like you have a charecter that you made and set him off on a quest and everything he does is based off of his decisions and you knowing his heart give him the tools and or the ability to do the things you dont want him to do prescriptively, but you want him to do so for your decreed will which was to teach your charecter lessons in which he had to do on his own.
@@itneywhat desire comes from our sense or our heart
It doesn't make sense at all. I'm responsible to correct a situation that I was born into (original sin...take one breath and your guilty!). The BOOK says that I was born with desires (um yeah this guy ate an apple soooo). I never chose my thoughts or desires...do you folks choose your thoughts/inclinations? I'm not asking if you can control your actions but can you control your very thoghts? Free will and an all knowing all powerful god can't make sense. Can you surprise god? He knew you would steal (all knowing, right?) but you suprised him and kept your stick fingers off the goods. I don't understand and I'm very close to calling it (faith, religion) nonsense.
Whether we choose from our sinful nature or try to please God in our choices for his will it still choice ..I love the explanation of the deep-rooted destination where our choice comes from but it's still a choice and free will... yet I know I had nothing to do with my salvation as my will fought it the whole time... but God's mercy praise God Almighty wonderful counselor Prince of Peace my hero my savior Abba brought me to the Son... I guess after I had awakened to the truth I did truly decide in my whole being yes Lord be my Saviour please
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Amen to this! ❤
RC ROCKS. TOO BAD HE IS NO LONGER HERE BUT IM HAPPY HE IS WITH THE LORD. WHAT A TREASURE. THANK YOU RC ❤
I am surprised that RC did not use 1 Cor 2:14 in this lecture. I think that Jonathan Edwards may have been thinking of this verse when he discussed moral ability: "...the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him; and he cannot know them because they are spiritually discerned..."
Rob Hay , sorry, my friend you are wrong on this. Jude 19 defines the natural man as one not possessing the Spirit. Paul speaks of three kinds of man in 1 Cor 2 & 3. Spiritual, natural and carnal. The spiritual man is the mature Christian. The carnal is what Paul calls the Corinthian believers at the beginning of chapter 3 who he will feed on the milk of the word. The natural man has neither desire (spiritual things are foolishness to him) and he also lacks capacity (cannot know spiritual things). It could not be clearer.
This does not mean that the natural man does not have free agency. He is free to do everything that is consistent with his nature. Only when the natural man is born from above - he becomes a new creation - does he now begin his journey to spiritual maturity.
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Amen! Praise Christ. ❤
"9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him" Hebrews 5:9
"34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him." Acts 10:34-35
"3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." 1 Timothy 2:3-4
"9 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 Peter 3:9
"30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent" Acts 17:30
What is your point? That all men have the ability in their fallen state to choose to effect their own righteousness and new birth?
God is love...
How will you obey until He changes your heart, mind, will, and disposition??? It won't ever happen until God in HIS SOVEREIGNTY AND PURPOSE WANTS TO MAKE IT OR PLANNED FOR IT RO HAPPEN BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD!!!
Who is the "us"? Who is the "all"?
@@levigarrett5614 From the context of what's said THE US AND THE ALL ARE THE TRUE BELIEVERS IN CHRIST JESUS,, REMEMBER THAT YOU MUST HAVE SCRIPTURE INTERPRET SCRIPTURE!!!
Absolutely brilliant teaching, so clear and so much in the urge to honour the godly reason and love of the sublime . If only the godless would grasp how unarguable this is
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
One of the most difficult things to understand. There are factors that affect free will.
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!
Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings!
Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
RSV
Only-monos
God-theos
Monos theos
Monotheism
The Father
Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)!
Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God!
Jesus has a God!
Jesus died!
God can’t die!
God raised Jesus from the dead!
@@mitchellc4 then ur not a Christian we believe Jesus is God
@@andrewadler4576
Any scripture that says that??
Who is the God of Jesus??
Rom 15
6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Cor 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort,
2 Cor 11
31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed for ever, knows that I do not lie.
Eph 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
Eph 1
17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him,
Col 1
3 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,
1 Pet 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
Rev 1
6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
@@mitchellc4 u don't knw bout the Trinity???? Jesus has a father but they are one ...jesus died on the cross because he claimed to be God .....
@@andrewadler4576
Who is the God of Jesus???
Rom 15
6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Cor 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort,
2 Cor 11
31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed for ever, knows that I do not lie.
Eph 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
Eph 1
17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him,
Col 1
3 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,
1 Pet 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
Rev 1
6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
trying to reconcile all existence to the scriptures is truly a career.
Again going through my playlist titled "Learn Something", I'm certain I included this one for the sake of having more concise words with which to explain all the ramifications of the concepts of free will to others. It's amazing How our beloved R.C. always had a way of stating things clearly and comprehensively, and even though these things "seem" to have always been known by me, never would I have been able to articulate it as well as he does here. Looks like I need to move this video to my "to teach" playlist. Thank you, again and again Ligonier Ministry. I've learned more theologically and doctrinally from this ministry over the past 8 years than all of the previous 20 years from other sources. Q. Do you agree that Romans 7 is the POV of a post regenerate Paul?
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
This guy is brilliant on so many levels - he should have his own subject of study.
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
If our will is not free is worth nothing. God wants us to love Him freely and not because of intimidation. It makes our decision valuable.
We cannot Love God we love idols.
@@iacoponefurio1915 you cannot love God? What do you mean mean? Idol? The creator and sustainer of this world an idol? You can love your car, football, golf, your dog etc. and are they your idols? Your creator is not an idol He Is worthy of love and and praise but if you do not recognize it as such is your loss and have the freedom to do so , no one is forcing you.
@@olgaburgos7780 nutjob your self righteousness makes you totally ineligible for the kingdom of God
You hate the real God and make your own delusion and call it God
You are not a Christian
Read the actual bible get a clue
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Forever blessed to see this teaching ❤ Such a revelation !! All glory to God ❤
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then RC Sproul follows it immediately with question,
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined by him?”
Then RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because the choices he made were already determined by him!
In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul would conclude the same thing with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this. Using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the parallel question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined by Him?’
Then RC Sproul must conclude,
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because the choices He made were already determined by Him! In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded His choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightly and prophetically writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism or any -isms. You just need the Scripture, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Just trust and obey all that Jesus commamded.
You all must remember that rc was also a philosopher and philosophy is extremely helpful when explaining Scripture. He was an excellent expositor
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
I used to visit my Canadian clan at least once a month, but I haven't been back to the Niagara Region since Feb 2020. I can't believe it's been over three years.
Reading the parable of the "Prodigal Son", which Jesus used to explain Salvation, I wonder why the younger son wasn't "elected" to return, because Jesus explains that the younger son made a FREEWILL decision to return & appeal to his dad's mercy.
🔸Luke 15:18
I WILL get up and go to my father, and will tell him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight"
That parable is mainly about adoption as sons. The father wants two sons, but in differrent ways, each wants only what is due to him. The prodigal wants at first his assigned inhereitance, only to leave his father and be his own man with the inheritance. Later, he designs, out of desperation, to return and be as like a servant of his father (so that he may eat, and have shelter) and yes, has some hope that as a son, his father may have mercy enough to let him be like as a servant only to the father. But the father welcomes him back AS A SON, A FULL SON, AND REJOICES AT HIS RETURN.
The other brother, has stayed and been a dutiful son, in his own mind, EARNING therefore, his sonship. When his prodigal brother returns, he is offended at his Fathers rejoicing. His father reminds him that this entere time whaterver was his (the fathers) has also been his (the elder brother).
This story is about how each son sees himself as the agent, earning or abusing, what comes to him by way of their father. The father (god) is trying to give them each EVERYTHING he has, because of his great unending mercy, not their works, etc.
@@mathewlowrey2734
Yes, it's about adoption.
The younger son was lost but now has been found, because he's repented & decided to return to his father. It was not the father's seeking (or decision) that brought him back. The elder son though with the father all along, is as good as lost.
The younger son made a choice & the father responded by offering his love & adopting him back as his son.
Romans 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
The goodness that his father had sown in the son’s heart, bore the fruit of repentance.
I am forever praising and believing Jesus Christ and this is pleasing to God.
@@mathewlowrey2734 Romans 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
The goodness that his father had sown in the son’s heart, bore the fruit of repentance.
I am forever praising and believing Jesus Christ and this is pleasing to God.
I agree. RC Sproul revealed the fallacy of his argument .
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
So the freewill was really for us to give it back to our Maker. The freedom of choosing what is right and not the wrong. Of course...we can still make mistakes but there are less of them.
There is another problem I see with any individual. And that is when we don't read the Lord's Word we can be manipulated, deceived or programmed from the world and its way and values.
The one Scripture that tells us a lot is from Jesus. Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God. Mathew 4:1-4.
R.C. Sproul has always been a very good preacher ordained by God.
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
@@papabear887 Do I see the setup?
Man has no freewill to choose in moral matters on anything. Because, of his inabilty and power to become righteous or perfect.
Got you:
So here we are in the Garden. God created everything and said, it was good. He made man and put him in that good place of natural. We see they had freedom except this one tree. R.C. Sproul said, man has the power on the natural ability. So things were good until...
Well, Eve first takes from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and Adam follows. Did not the serpent plant a decision for them to eat this forbidden fruit? If there is NOT any freedom to choose here, then we have to say God predestined that they bring sin in this world. After all,it was now a moral issue in fact, a command not to eat.
In Genesis 4:6-8. Read it and see there is no twist of a freewill option. God told Abel if you doest well shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.
Did not God give Cain a choice to do good or evil?
Yes. I believe God knew what would happen and knew who will come to Him. Why would God tell his Apostles to go out and spread the message of the Gospels? Why waist that time if it was already decided. Why preach the Bible at all if they can do what you said in the end. All you need is Scriptures. Is that not a decision for one to read or not to read.
In closing...I agree with your last statement because that is exactly how I gave my life to the One God. Jesus Christ Lord and Savior of my sins. In fact, he was the One who told me I was the sinner because I kept on asking, why does God's choosen people keep sinning.
God has also said, my people perish for the lack of knowledge. They chose sin and not the One who can help them become perfect one day most likely when the saved recieved thier new bodies.
God's Word has the power and people make a moral choice not to read it. God gave us all a soul...and the freewill to choose
I rest my case on Deut 30:19. Proverbs 3:31
Isaiah 7:15.
My final point: Psalm 25:12
What man is he that feareth the Lord? him shall He TEACH in the way that he should go.
Only then can we choose His way.
@@jmbbk4737I appreciate your response. I just wanted to show to viewers that RC Sproul’s syllogism while already horrible in all its presentation, that even before he began to use it, already claimed a contradictory anachronistic set of terms but still proceeded to make the premises: “every choice a man makes is free and every choice a man makes is determined”. Thus I wrote.
@@papabear887 Sorry. I read you wrong. I thought you believed in R.C.'s teaching on this subject.
He once used the story of Joesph who was sold by his brothers and ended up being high in Pharaoh's empire for his case.
He told his brothers. You made it for evil but God made it for good.
We all best be careful who we listen to. The twisting of God's Holy Word is being transformed into a man-centered gospel with new-age arriving for an emergent church to mingle together with Catholicism. Yeah. A one world religion and many other entities who are eager for peace without the Prince of Peace.
Very exciting but troubling times are here.
May the Lord strengthen us and give us more courage to run the gauntlet.
Peace to you Papabear887; over and out.
@@jmbbk4737God bless
you soldier of the Living God.
This stuff is deep for my brain.
Patrick Leyerle true! I just purchased His teaching on predestined,and that was a brain twister,but I grew in understanding.
Ask the God's light for help you!
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!
Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings!
Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
RSV
Only-monos
God-theos
Monos theos
Monotheism
The Father
Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)!
Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God!
Jesus has a God!
Jesus died!
God can’t die!
God raised Jesus from the dead!
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
It is because of our low Moral Ability that we have been given the Ability to Repent and not sin again in order to
make the righteouse choices, desired by Our Lord, abiding in Him
Humans are totally immoral
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Rom 10:13" For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (NOW!) . Free choice to call or not call on the Lord. Why doesn't this and the myriad of other verses in the Bible say "Whosoever was chosen before the foundation of the earth will be saved"? Because that would be an accursed predestined different gospel! Believe the Bible, NOT men!
Amen. Too many doctrines of devils, leading the sheep to the goat heap.
He's good 👍
He has the vocab and articulation and can THINK clearly and structurally (did Philosophy)
He knows his content, lectured as professor for many years.
Studied broadly and vastly, reading books
And coming from the secular to the church makes him a sharp preacher
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says “every choice man makes is free AND every choice man makes is determined.”
Then RC Sproul follows it immediately with a question,
How can man be free when the choices he made were already self determined?
Thus RC Sproul concluded,
“man has no freewill” because the choices he made, he already predetermined for whatever reason or lack thereof or for a desired outcome. Therefore his self determinism preceeded his choice and thus precluded any freewill.
If that were true, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, consider this
Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.
Then the question to follow using RC Sproul’s logic is,
How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined by Himself?
Thus, RC Sproul must conclude that
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL
because the choices He made He already predetermined for whatever reason or lack thereof or for a desired outcome. Therefore His self determinism preceeded His choice and thus precluded any freewill.
Then RC Sproul doubles down by pandering, “of course, man has freewill for natural matters”. But for moral matters, to borrow the philosphers views “man has no ability or power for righteousness”.
This method of logic is completely in disarray. After equating freewill and determinism as distinct and opposite entities, he now underhandedly and shamelessly pandering the natural versus moral matters to excuse and support his conclusion that “man has no freewill”.
Furthermore, he adds that man by nature is corrupt and therefore man is incapable to be righteous or perfect!!!
Thus what RC Sproul is saying is that indeed man has no freewill because not only is his choices predetermined precluding freewill, he is also incapable to be righteous or perfect!!! This time freewill is now to be looked at as “to choose ” and “to be”!!!
At this point, it now begs the question: “can man freely choose to do right morally at the very least? If a practising muslim or hindu is drowning and sees a rescue boat, begins to wave his arm, screams when he can to save him, calls on his allah, false prophet muhammad, any gods or spirits to save him, but does he really not have a freewill to call on the One True God because he is morally corrupt
and therefore morally incapable to call on Jesus but he can call allah?
Is it not both a natural matter and moral
matter to choose to save oneself from drowning and dying to have life? But why is it not possible to call on God the One True God but can call his allah or false prophet muhammad?
To be saved from drowning and dying is one thing but to choose life over death by drowning is another thing. One is “to be” and the other one is “to choose”.
Therefore freewill is “to choose”. “To be” is another completely different matter. But to say that “man has no freewill because he predetrmined his choice”’and he is incapable “to be” is a disastrously incoherent argument.
Furyhermore, RC Sproul just committed a “bait and switch arguement”.
This time, he not only falsely equates ‘choices made as free and choices made as determined’ on the one hand, then to say ‘to choose’ and ‘to be’ on the other hand as a reasonable arguement for “man has no freewill” conclusion.
If that were not enough, he underhandedly threw in , “of course, man has freewill to do natural matters but not moral matters”.
He then equates natural and moral distinctions on one hand and freewill and determinism distinctions on the other hand!!
This type of philosophy is pure mental gymnastics without rules. The target moves constantly. If you answer on the negative, they respond on the positive. If you consider both distinctions as equals, they move to another topic altogether that is unrelated but nonetheless pretend to be universally accepted.
The worst part is at the beginning of his so called lecture which I call cunning deception:
He promoted the idea that the christians at large believe in his creation of humanistic definition of freewil. He says freewill is
“the ability to choose spontaneously “!!!!
Then he starts dismantling his own creation by pretending that the vast majority of christians think it or believe it!!!
Does anyone really choose spontaneously? Choosing by nature implies some value or lack thereof!!!!!
To choose and to will are also two distinct terms. Both have implied value!!! At the very least, they are tools to convey a thought.
Freewill is not the absence of influence to want or desire. It is simply to desire or to want despite or in spite of influence or lack thereof or experience or lack thereof.
So for anyone to say freewill is to choose spontaneously without inclination, disposition, imfluence or determination, whoever does that? But according to RC Sproul “most christians” do.
how to explain God's predestination and human being's freewill interrelation. it seems that our mind logically will say that if God's predestine our choice/ free will , then why we have moral responsibility of our choice ? unless the God's predestination is only limited to pre known our choice .however, this will contradict to the sovereignty of God.
YS Lim
The holy spirit gives you a desire for Christ then you can choose him of your own free will.
@@jts400hp But if it chooses you and your only will is to server......how is that freewill?
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!
Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings!
Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
RSV
Only-monos
God-theos
Monos theos
Monotheism
The Father
Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)!
Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God!
Jesus has a God!
Jesus died!
God can’t die!
God raised Jesus from the dead!
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Yes I love RC sproul. He's the one that convinced me of reformed theology and predestination. When he left to be with the Lord the world became a bit darker. I look forward to seeing him again and thanking him.. I love reform doctrine it is the true biblical doctrine and sweat the Bible teaches. And it makes perfect sense. And it takes away man's arrogance and sinful pride. It makes us realize it is God who saved us we had nothing to do with it except respond which was irresistible. Thank you Jesus! It's been 49 years for me. Love in Christ. Pastor Duane and Chico pup
2 god b the glory. Foreever more.
@@barbaranunn5984 amen
Well he knows the TRUTH now ... Salvation is available to ALL, but not all will receive it. We don't serve a CRUEL God who created people for the sole purpose of burning in hell for eternity.
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
There is a MASSIVE difference between free will and volition. Only being to ever have there will totally free is God himself. There are no outside influences directing Gods will. It is free from any outside influences. Mans will is conditional meaning he can choose between things but outside influences play a role in mans decision which is called volition. Man can choose only what his will is bound to which in this case is Sinful Nature!!!! The bible states that no man woman or child will seek after God but we only seek after God because God first seeketh after you. PERIOD
Indeed!
Free Will is the mind choosing. The mind and the will are inseparably related, we do not make moral choices without the mind approving the direction of our choice. That is one of the dimensions that is closely related to the biblical concept of conscience; that the mind is involved in moral choices. For example: If I become aware of certain options, and if I prefer one over the other, To have a preference, before I can make the choice, I have to have some awareness of what those options are, for it to be a moral decision.
yes at the moment of choice we follow our strongest inclination! If Jesus is Lord in your life then of course you will make the choice that glorifies Him.
Cat Cleghorn the point is that you are able, but still do not always do that.
You, obviously, are a stronger Christian that the apostle, Paul. Your statement does not line up with scripture.
Replay the message
@@TheB1nary EZEKIEL 36:26:27
@@TheB1nary
We are always doing what we desire most.
As he began explaining this, connecting the dots, and as it began to register in my mind my eyes lit up like a Christmas tree.
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says, “every choice a man makes AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then right after that, he asks,
How can man be free when he made the choices that he already determined?
Thus RC Sprouls concludes, “man has no freewill” because his self determinism for whatever reason or lack thereof or for a desired outcome he sought preceeded his choice and thus precluded any freewill. Thus man has no freewill.
If that were true, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, consider now this,
Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.
Then the immediate question applies,
How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined by Himself?
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude that
GOD MUST HAVE NO FREEWILL because His self determinism for whatever reason or lack thereof or for a desired outcome He sought preceeded His choice and thus precluded any freewill. Thus TC Sproul must conclude God has no freewill.
James 1:27 writes,
“Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, AND to keep oneself unstained by the world.”
Colossians 2:33 writes,
“Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
I hope you stay faaaar away from calvinism. You just need the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and Holy Spirit to teach you all things. Your role is simply to obey the Father.
Interesting Dr. Sproul said that free will is the "ability to choose according to one's highest desire", when others would have free will be defined precisely to "be able to choose despite one's desire", that is even know I wish to do evil, I choose to do the good.
We are always choosing what we desire most. So even if you would say "i desire this thing more than anything else but i will choose that thing instead" it meant that you did not really desire "this" thing more than anything else, rather you desired "that" thing more than anything else. That is how it goes.
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Philippians 2: 9 Because of this, Father YAHweh also has highly exalted YAHshua, and given Him a Name which is above every Name;
10 That in the Name of YAHwehShua, every knee in heaven, on earth, and under earth, must bow,
11 And every tongue must confess that YAHwehShua Messiah is King, to the glory of YAHweh the Father.Hallelu-YAHwehShua Praise Father YAHweh.
I agree with you. I don’t know much Hebrew but quoting the passage from Scriptures does not return void.
Since you are commenting on the site where RC Sproul’s freewill lecture is…I would like to respond to his subject freewill.
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Free will is the freedom from God to all mankind that allows us to make choices. We are not christian robots. God tells us to repent and believe, and I did, I made a choice. God gets all the credit and glory for my salvation. God allowed me to make a decision, most say no to him. Yes God allows people to say no to him, read His word it's full of stories where people say no and disobey. The rich young ruler was offered salvation from Jesus, he walked away, said no.
Good thing you were better than all of those people who were given the same choice and rejected God, while you had the sense to accept Him.
@@rickstark85 I'm blessed by Jesus
@@ironleatherwood1357 yep, chosen and predestined
@@rickstark85 God allows everyone to make a choice. John 3:16-18. Most choose hell
@@ironleatherwood1357 nobody is denying that we make a choice
God created the universe with His Free Will, He in His Authority freely predetermined.
Who's fault is it for our "desire" towards imperfection?
If we can only choose what we desire most in any particular situation, then we must ask if we can choose our desires.
If we did not choose our desires then there is no "free will" worth mentioning.
@Bastian B - Just to make sure I'm following you correctly: I desire Coke more than I desire Pepsi. Therefore there's no point talking about free will.
Is that about right?
If so, what does it look like for a person to change their desire about which soft drink they want?
Can a person decide "Next Friday, for no good reason, I'm going to change my desire, and prefer Pepsi instead of Coke, and from then on, any time someone puts the choices in front of me, I will desire [and therefore choose] Pepsi"?
Can you choose right now to desire Pepsi more than Coke? Can you choose your desire?
In terms of "fault", it depends what you mean. God is causatively responsible for our bad choices (in that He is omnipotent, and could have ordained that something else occur) but not morally responsible for our choices (in that these are the choices of other moral agents). The distinction between primary agency and secondary agency is important here.
"If we can only choose what we desire most in any particular situation" that is correct, but the "can" there is moral, not physical. In other words, it is obviously open to an Orc not to pillage a town; the Orc could just go for a walk. But morally speaking, the Orc is so depraved that it can't help itself but choose otherwise. So there is an important distinction between physical inability (where the moral agent wouldn't be responsible for its actions, since it was physically unable to do otherwise) and moral inability (where the orc is so corrupt it won't choose otherwise, and in that sense is "unable" to).
In this sense, we are like the orcs. Now, does the Orc's moral inability to choose otherwise remove moral guilt? I can't see how it does - if the orc is so throughly bad that it couldn't choose something other than the bad, I don't think that removes moral guilt. Wouldn't that rather increase it? Not only was wrong done, but it was done with an evil passion for that evil.
Your last comment: so yeah, our "free will" doesn't include the ability to choose our desires. So any definition of free will can't contain that choice. Our will is free in that we do what we want to do, and it was open to us to choose otherwise. Does that make sense?
Bastian B See a fellow drop his wallet. You pick it up, it's thick with hundreds, give it back immediately? Keep it all. Take half or all the cash and get the wallet back? Are you penniless or just homeless....Will the wallet owner reward you if you're honest? Understand you keeping all or half. Grateful for getting his credit cards and drivers license back only. Think, not my fault guys stupid, sell or use credit cards too...
@Bastian -- "Then we must ask *IF* we can choose our desires." Not within Calvinism. Your desires were chosen for you, by God when He created you in the womb with a nature inclined for evil, that you *FULFILL* His immutable decree. For their Confessions specifically state God alone has decreed whatsoever comes.
So if they say, " You can change your desire for Pepsi or Coke", yet, after you've selected one over the other, their doctrines teach *THAT* choice itself was a *fulfilment* of God's immutable decree, you could NOT have chosen otherwise.
The conclusion is obvious, everyone's a puppet made of flesh & blood within their systematic, and the "wants" & "desires" you're a slave to, are the *strings* God uses to have absolute control over you, to get you to sin, or to obey for His glory, outside any human will or exertion.
Free will= Freedom to choose what you want.
what determines what you want?
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
This is sooo good explanation! I love it!
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!
Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings!
Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
RSV
Only-monos
God-theos
Monos theos
Monotheism
The Father
Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)!
Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God!
Jesus has a God!
Jesus died!
God can’t die!
God raised Jesus from the dead!
@@mitchellc4 Oh, Jesus is God. He is God. No matter what you say! He is King.
@@kidsgreenscreen9234
Who is the God of Jesus???
Rom 15
6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Cor 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort,
2 Cor 11
31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed for ever, knows that I do not lie.
Eph 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
Eph 1
17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him,
Col 1
3 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,
1 Pet 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
Rev 1
6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
@@mitchellc4 Do you not know that He came to the world as a server and as a son of man?
And ahh, can you read the Bible where Scripture say Jesus is God, He is King, everlasting Father, Before Abraham was Jesus, He is the first and the last, Alpha and Omega, The word became flesh, One King, One God and One Savior,? Do you not read your Bible? Or you fail to understand the context?
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
RC does a great job on this subject. The church today is so inconsistent in its theology, making videos like this a must see! If God chose us in eternity past, Ephesians 1:4 then why would He leave our salvation up to us?
You have such a high regard for RC Sproul on this subject. But let me make sure you understood what he said in his syllogism. Because if it is true that “man has no freewill”, using the same logic RC Sproul used, he will
come to the same conclusion about God!!!
RC Sproul said “Every choice man makes is free and every choice man makes is determined.”
Then he asked this question right after it, “How can man be free when he made choices that he determined by himself?”
Therefore, he concludes, “man has no freewill” because he determined the reason or desired outcome previously by himself.
OK fair enough!
Them applying RC Sproul syllogism:
Every choice God makes is free and every choice God makes is determined by Himself.
Then using RC Sproul’s scrutiny, the question then is
How can God be free when He made choices that He determined by Himself!
Therefore , RC Sproul must also conclude, GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He determined the reason or desired outcome previously by Himself.
In regard to Ephesian 1:4,
“ He chose us in the Messiah before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before Him in love.”
Then verses 5 and 6 writes “He predestined us for adoption as sons through Messiah Yeshua, in keeping with the good pleasure of His will- to the glorious praise of His grace, with which He favored us through the One He loves!”,
Do the passages, individually or together, literally or textually state anything about the absence of man’s participation?
I’m sure most would say ‘no’ but calvinism makes an interpretation differently. It’s called eisegesis. It means the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one’s own presuppositions, agendas or biases.
Ephesians has 6 chapters describing who believers are, the hope of His calling, what believers were once was, a partnership to God’s people and His household, a call to know the love of Messiah and be filled in fullness, an urgent call to walk in a manner worthy of the calling, a call to maturity toward Messiah’s fullness, insist to walk no longer as the pagans do, to lay aside the old self, be renewed in the spirit to be like God in true righteousness and holiness, to be imitators of God, walk in love and to remember that no immoral, indecent, or greedy person will have any inheritance in God’s kingdom, to walk as children of light, not be a drunkard, to submit to one another, loving wives and submitting to husbands, to obey parents and human masters and to be finally strong in the Lord by outting on the armor.
That is a lot of encouragement to be active participants in the love of Messiah and the community of believers.
Therefore in Ephesians 1:4-6, does it have a literal or textual statement of the absence of man’s active participation?
I ask that question because the rest of the book of Ephesians does.
This is correct, that God demonstrates his sovereignty over salvation electing his people by name before the foundation of the world. Salvation is completely and utterly contingent upon God and his decretive will.
@@DonCheetaah This looks like you took it right out of a cult handbook instead of the bible.
@@teeemm9456
You forgot to capitalize Bible.
I disagree with the free will being us choosing according to our strongest inclinations. People everyday, saved and unsaved choose to do right even when they do not want to. They of course also choose to do wrong, however sometimes they do not want to. Almighty God gave us the option to choose. He, being absolutely Sovereign, has allowed us to choose, and ONLY a SOVEREIGN GOD could do that.
Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
God allows free will in His children until they are trained. Once trained it is not free to depart.
I am forever praising and believing Jesus Christ and this is pleasing to God.
If a person would claim: "i desire this thing more than anything else but i will choose that thing instead" it means that this person did not desire "this" thing more than anything else, he rather desired "that" thing more than anything else and this is why he chose it.
awesome lecture, thank you for posting.
Since you say that was an awesome lecture, I want to make sure you understood RC Sproul’s syllogism in getting to his conclusion that “man has no freewill”.
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then RC Sproul asks this question immediately right after,
How can man be free when the choices he made were determined by himself for whatever reason or desired outcome he had in mind?
Therefore, he concludes, by saying “Man has no freewill” as his choices were determined by himself preceeding to the choice!!!
If that is true, using his arguement,
Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined by Himself.
Then using RC Sproul’s prying question after that statement,
How can God be free when the choices He made were determined by Himself previously for whatever reason or desired outcome He had in His mind?
Therefore, using RC Sproul’s concluding logic,
God must have no freewill as His choices were determined by Himself preceeding to the choice!!!
@@papabear887psychotic wackjob triggered 🤡 no one needs your incoherent drivel cult follower atheist humanist narcissist
@@papabear887 Huh, can we love God without the freedom to choose, which people do everyday? Is love real if not given freely? No, I believe not. If there is no free will then how does Calvin justify those who are predestined, from birth, to go to hell? There's a lot of holes in your understanding of God's word.
@@JamesPerigardI appreciate your response. Man does have freewill to want or desire inspite of influence or circumstance or the lack thereof. Thus anyone may believe or reject Jesus upon hearing the message. God’s punishment on man thus depends on man’s freewill response to wether he believes Him or not. Love is given and received freely. Children, infants and disabled young ones and anyone below the age of accountability God loves them completely. Where will they be when they die? Jesus once said “such as these (pointing to the little ones) that the kingdom of God belongs.”God’s warning has always been to man or woman- meaning the adults.
I was simply responding to RC Sproul’s false syllogism.
@@QuakerTakerJesus loves you so much. The Father cares about you so much as well. He listens and reads your comments all the time.
I love you too friend.
Thank you for uploading. This got deep into my soul! Please I would like to know what is the video that follows this teaching. Thank you.
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!
Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings!
Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
RSV
Only-monos
God-theos
Monos theos
Monotheism
The Father
Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)!
Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God!
Jesus has a God!
Jesus died!
God can’t die!
God raised Jesus from the dead!
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Reflexiones personales que me llevo de este video:
-Hay veces que nos ocurren cosas injustas o somos "víctimas" del mal del mundo, pero esto siempre tiene un significado. Dios espera que de aquella situación desfavorable surja algo mejor mejor de lo que teníamos hasta entonces, como si fuera un "renacer".
-Si supuestamente nuestras acciones las llevamos a cabo sin alguna intención detrás, ¿Qué significado moral podrían llegar a tener nuestra acciones? ¿Acaso existiría un bien o un mal? Porque lo que más determina esto no es solo el resultado de nuestras acciones, sino la intención detrás de aquello.
-Es imposible que nuestras decisiones no tengan una intención previa ya que sino ni siquiera nos tomaríamos el trabajo de decidir por alguna opción, simplemente nos quedaríamos paralizados. Y nuestras intenciones detrás de nuestras decisiones surgen de nuestra forma de ver al mundo, la cual es formada por varios factores y experiencias que pasamos a lo largo de nuestra vida, lo que nos lleva también a la conclusión de que no somos ni buenos ni malos por naturaleza, sino que lo somos por "adaptación".
-El "Determinismo" significa que nuestras vidas están guiadas por fuerzas externas y no podemos hacer nada para controlarlo.
-Ser libres de verdad es elegir lo que nosotros de verdad queremos para nuestras vidas. Esto quiere decir que de alguna forma los pecadores también son libres, ya que pecan de manera libre ya que es lo que ellos quieren hacer en aquel momento.
Esto por una parte significa que la raíz del pecado nace del libre albedrío, ya que en nuestra libertad nosotros más de una vez habremos cometido un pecado, pero es parte de nuestra naturaleza. Dios nos dio el libre albedrío para elegir lo que nosotros queramos ya que Él quería tener una relación con nosotros, quería que Él elijamos amarlo, y Él nos dio el libre albedrío porque nos ama, ya que Él quiere que seamos capaces de elegir lo que nosotros de verdad queremos para nuestra vida aunque no este en sus planes y le duela.
-Nosotros tenemos libre albedrío, pero perdimos la libertad. Cuando nos dejamos llevar por nuestros deseos carnales caemos en el pecado, y este pecado nos "ata" y nos volvemos esclavos de el. La verdadera libertad existe cuando nos liberamos del pecado y elegimos lo que nuestro corazón de verdad quiere.
Does anybody know, when this was recorded?
Thanks.
From my research it could've been recorded between the '80s and '90s. Nearly 40 years ago! It was true then and is still true today.
Look at the style of clothes
The books and podium are from the sixties, the haircuts are seventies, church folks tend to lag behind culture, I guess early eighties..
The thoughts of man are of himself, but his footsteps are from God. Who gives us our desires? We have free will/thoughts but the action of doing the greatest desire is from the Creator of ALL things.
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Consider Leibniz's line, which is that our desires strongly incline our choices but do not determine them. This is probably a good way of thinking about libertarian free will.
I'm with you on that.
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
@@papabear887 You seem to have really nailed the problem with Sproul's argument. I think the core problem is because, as a Reformed theologian, Sproul is dependent on Calvin's bad understanding of free will.
@@grantbartley483Thanks for your reply. I truly appreciate it. 😊
@@papabear887 My pleasure
"To choose" and "to desire" are different things. We have to choose between our different desires. We have to choose also between the different reasons to do different things. But if it is not us that choose between all those things, that is not a free act. What does "choice" mean if I must choice the stronger desire?
It means there is no free will.
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself included) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You (we) don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
I’ve been trying to get my friend Sarah to listen to this for decades! She continues to be stubborn!
Leonard Schoeberlein -she doesn’t know you how could she recognize you ??
Maybe she is predestined for damnation ???
thats her free will
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
A scientist in a lecture said that "Reality isn't real," or something like it. He needed to state his definitions. This speaker did that at the beginning; every speaker should do the same. I can't imagine anybody doing anything without a motive or reason. Humans need a yardstick, whether it is God, or Money, or something else. In this context free will is the freedom to choose our own God. It says nothing about what the consequences will be. The Prodigal's elder brother chose not to join the homecoming party. Nobody grabbed him by the scruff of the neck and dragged him in the gate. That is a practical example of free will.
Not even close
If he had freewill he would have forced his father to see things his way.
You haven't even graduated kindergarten yet.🙄
You have the logic of one running backwards in a race
I agree. RC sproul gave a set up by using his concocted “humanistic definition of freewill” which states that it is the ability to choose “spontaneously”. Then it got worse from then on.
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
@@iacoponefurio1915 "If he had freewill he would have forced his father to see things his way." That's literally the worst argument I've seen from someone and then you doubled down by insulting the other poster, twice.
Great teacher.... Smooth voice i had to re-listen as i woke up at the end !
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!
Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings!
Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
RSV
Only-monos
God-theos
Monos theos
Monotheism
The Father
Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)!
Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God!
Jesus has a God!
Jesus died!
God can’t die!
God raised Jesus from the dead!
Edwards made a stellar point regarding our inclinations.
Only until God changes your heart, mind, and will , will you want or love the things of God. EZEKIEL 36:27
This is some interesting philosophy. I think one alternative was omitted: mystery. Maybe understanding free will is not really possible. After all, the argument for Sproul's position relies on the notion that "unconstrained freedom" cannot ever have a reason for choosong one thing or another. This is only true on the assumption that choosing can be rationally explained in all circumstances. I think he is jumping to conclusions here.
As for the idea that people are essentially led around by their desires, this is only different from determinism in a semantic sense if you assume that people have no ability to choose what they want. And that leads us to an odd idea. If people's choices are determined by their wants, then they are automata which have no real control. Simply set the desire and the will must obey. It is only if they have some ability to choose what they want that you can say they are free... but then you have the problem of wants determining choices determining wants. It's dizzying!
This is an indication that the idea is all wrong. It isn't an equation to be solved mathematically, nor is it a logical idea to be pondered philosophically. Rather, it is a mystery- something more foundational and thus impossible to grasp within its own frame.
If you have this idea in your head while you listen to Sproul's arguments, you'll realize that his ideas rely on circular reasoning. Because one's choices are determined by their desire, they cannot have any rational basis for a choice when unconstrained by the same. With no rational basis, no choice can be made. Therefore, all choices must be determined by desire.
The most critical failure of this theory about will, desire, and choice occurs when you try and extrapolate it to God's choices. Who can say why God does things the way he does them? He tells us the reason sometimes. But you can hardly say that, prior to creation, God was somehow lacking a desired thing - he was in eternal relationship within the Trinity, dwelling in matchless light. No desire could possibly be unmet, even if God were susceptible to desire (which seems a stretch). So God, at the very least, must be a free agent, able to do as he pleases without constraint and without any goal besides that which he sets. And his reasons may be unknowable to us.
Just like Molinism, man always needs some wild card to compensate for his inability to understand the nature of God SMH
I agree. Explaining God through the lenses of philosophy is absurd. He knew that all along just before he made his premises but he still proceeded. And continuing with it- what he already thought was contradictory premises-he came out with a “desired outcome”. But he must also come to concluding that God has no freewill
Allow me to explain …
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself included) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You (we) don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Over the years, I have studied the Bible regarding this matter. As best I can figure out, repentance is necessary for salvation. Scripture also teaches that repentance is a “gift” from God. But God does not grant that gift to everyone. Multiple verses in the NT contain the phrase “in the hope that God will grant them repentance” or “if God grants them repentance”. Reinforcing this, through the Gospels Christians are referred to as “the elect”, with the only logical implication being that some people are not elected. But I am very undecided as to how God makes the decision of whom to extend the gift of salvation.
We don't always acting according to our strongest inclinations. Sometimes our strongest inclination is towards something we perceive as being wrong, but instead we resist the temptation towards that object and choose the the thing we know is right. We can choose against our strongest inclinations.
In which case your strongest inclination would no longer be "towards something we perceive as being wrong," but rather toward "the the thing we know is right." Apart from a stronger inclination toward the latter (righteousness), you would never resist/forsake the former (unrighteousness).
Don't think I would agree Brian. If that was the case, then we would not be accountable for any of our choices. You only have to say, 'Hey, it's not my fault, I couldn't choose otherwise'. We must place responsibility in the hands of human beings and in order to do this, free will must exist.
This doesn’t negate accountability, but it does affirm that every choice we make, whether good or bad, is ultimately due to the greatest inclination of the will at the moment of choosing. As Jonathan Edwards argues, “In every act of will there is an act of choice; in every volition there is a preference or prevailing inclination of the soul which at that moment takes the soul out of a state of perfect indifference with respect to the immediate object of the volition. . . . Where there is absolutely no preferring or choosing-where there is nothing but an ongoing perfect equilibrium-there is no volition.” In short, “the will is always determined by the strongest motive.” If this weren’t the case, if every choice were equally desirable to us, we would never make any choice at all. Take as an example someone (such as myself) who loves desserts, especially those of the chocolate variety. Tonight I was confronted with the choice of whether or not to indulge in a piece of chocolate birthday cake at my weekly church small group. Now, I could have chosen not to eat a piece of cake (or perhaps two), but you better believe I did. I’m in decent shape, and, despite the fact I’ll have to expend more energy to counter those additional calories, my desire to have cake outweighed my desire not to engage in extra exercise. But suppose I were on a very strict diet, perhaps for serious health reasons, and confronted with the same scenario. My desire for indulging in cake could be just as great as it was earlier tonight. And yet, in spite of this intense craving, if my desire to preserve my health were greater than my desire to eat cake, I would ultimately forego the cake for the sake of my physical wellbeing. Similarly, we are daily confronted with the choice of whether or not to engage in certain sinful behavior; many such temptations can be excruciatingly intense. But we will in the end make a decision one way or the other whether to resist or succumb to the temptation. Consequently, one of these desires, either for obedience or disobedience, must finally win out over the other. And whichever desire wins out is necessarily our strongest inclination, even if an opposing inclination initially appears strongest. Otherwise we would choose according to that different/opposite inclination, in which case it would prove itself to be the strongest inclination. The choice we make reveals what we truly desire most, in which direction our will is most strongly inclined. Again, as R.C. notes, a will that is equally inclined toward all possible choices is a will that cannot and will not choose. Of course, it is only by the spiritual regeneration wrought by the Holy Spirit that fallen man, who is spiritually and morally “dead in trespasses and sins…by nature [a child] of wrath,” can possess a genuine desire for obedience, and thus freely choose obedience over disobedience.
I will read your reply carefully and then get back to you. Thanks and God bless :)
I have read your response and it certainly makes logical sense but I feel it fails to understand our responsibility. Our choices shape our desires. In fact, choosing and desiring are not mutually exclusive, they are heavily connected. My desire to do right grows stonger when I realize the benefits of those choices. Your desire to do wrong grows stronger when you continue to be willingly decieved and head down the path fo self-indulgent behaviour. Choice and desire are not mutually exclusive.
If a choice is not made with determination it can't be free. A choice can't be made at all without first determining that there is one available to make?
3TapSnu 0ut he covered that. Self determination.
Exactly. It's not rocket science.
The gospel is so simple even a child can understand it. But proud theologians try to complicate it.
I agree. But RC Sproul just made an even bigger blunder.
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
The Bible says that God knows the imagination of the thoughts of our hearts..if that's the case which it is..then there's no way he doesn't know what we'll choose..since our choices ain't spontaneous and by default we can't choose Him without Him first choosing us..this also partly explains how He knows the future
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!
Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings!
Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
RSV
Only-monos
God-theos
Monos theos
Monotheism
The Father
Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)!
Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God!
Jesus has a God!
Jesus died!
God can’t die!
God raised Jesus from the dead!
@@mitchellc4 Repent of your blasphemy.
@@Tre492
Hello
What exactly did you have an issue with?
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Now I share is a story which is a fact since it is my own story of salvation. I was atheist for 23 years. One day I thought what if I am wrong and there is 1 percent chance that God exists. I remember I had pain and I repeated this sentence: "God if you really exist, show me why you created human that created suffering in this world". God answered me and I realized that I am elected to deny myself and take the cross and follow Jesus christ and do the will of God for ever. At least for my case, predestination is obvious and it doesn't have conflict with free will. Since It was my free will to think about reality. It was my free will to set a 1 percent chance that god may exist and I should ask him to help me to tell me if he exists. Now use the template of the wedding feast parable that Jesus said. In that wedding, I was not even in that city and I was sinful but the king said to invite anyone including a blind person like me. At the time that they were calling people, they noticed that I am listening to the call by asking "why did you create human if you really exist" . That curious thinking and reasong which was my free will saved me. Thus, we conclude that there is no conflict between free will and predestination and both exists with no contradiction.
Interesting that the wonderfully talented and gifted RC says at 8mins following, that free will in the humanists rationale is to say that a human being would make a choice out of nothing and therefore the willing action (affect), has no (cause).
Only God is the affect (being), that IS without causation (being), that is his eternal being, which then followed by HIS will, or The Will of God.
He's pointing out a fallacy of the humanist view of free will. You are absolutely correct in that God is the only uncaused cause. The reason for the existence of this view is that humanists refuse to carry their arguments to their logical downfall.
Brian Rush what is the logical downfall precisely?
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!
Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings!
Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
RSV
Only-monos
God-theos
Monos theos
Monotheism
The Father
Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)!
Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God!
Jesus has a God!
Jesus died!
God can’t die!
God raised Jesus from the dead!
@@mitchellc4 good showing for the God head. I only see 2 in the God head
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
I remember before God shine HIS Marvelous light upon me, I was living a sinful Life In The flesh living a free will choice life because the Holy Spirit was NOT 🚫 in me.
But now that I'VE BEEN SAVED for 26 years it's time for me to start walking in the light as he is in the light and then will have fellowship one with another as the BLOOD of JESUS CHRIST cleanse me from all sin. 1st John 1:7
And that is through the HOLY SPIRIT IN ME. And when I take UP my CROSS and DENY my fleshly self, Matthew 16:24 Greater is HE THAT IS IN ME, than he that is in the world 🌎 1st John 4:4
So for us to be that new creature in Christ where old things have all passed away but behold All THINGS BECOME NEW. 2st Corinthians 5:17 We NEED to DIE of our FLESH DAILY and walk in the light through the HOLY SPIRIT 👻 IN US BY DOING THE WILL OF GOD THE FATHER. ❤
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
All of Humanity is fallen. We need to be made alive by Christ.
+Patrick Leyerle Your comment - "All of Humanity is fallen. We need to be made alive by Christ.
"
My comment - Yes, all of humanity is fallen, but not to the extent that Calvinism teaches. Calvinism teaches spiritual annihilation, total inability, but the Bible teaches spiritual separation. Man still has the image of God in him and can still willfully respond by believing the gospel to be saved.
Romans 1:19-21 - 19 Because that which may be known of God IS MANIFEST IN THEM; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; SO THAT THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE.
21 Because that, WHEN THEY KNEW GOD, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
If our choices are made purely spontaneously, without any prior inclination, without any prior disposition, in a sense what we are saying, is that there is no reason for the choice. That there is no motivation or motive for the choice. It just happens spontaneously. And if that is the way our choices operate, then we immediately face this problem. How could such a choice have any moral significance to it?
Amem 🙏🙏
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
It's much deeper than what you wrote. It takes a very deep study of systematic theology to truly grasp God's sovereignty over man. We can agree to disagree. God bless you 🙏
@@209coachThanks for your response. I appreciate it.😊
Amen Sproul. May we seek the Lord we fighting temptations. God bless you all.
Stop being disrespectful
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
The following exhortations by God would not have been given to man if man had no free will and was "incapable" of returning to God:
Jeremiah 3:12 - Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, RETURN, thou backsliding Israel, saith the Lord; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever.
Jeremiah 3:14 - RETURN, O faithless sons,' declares the LORD; 'For I am a master to you, And I will take you one from a city and two from a family, And I will bring you to Zion.'
Jeremiah 3:22 - "RETURN, O faithless sons, I will heal your faithlessness." "Behold, we come to You; For You are the LORD our God.
Malachi 3:7 - "From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from My statutes and have not kept them RETURN TO ME, AND I WILL RETURN TO YOU," says the LORD of hosts. "But you say, 'How shall we return?'
Jeremiah 15:19 - Therefore, thus says the LORD, "IF YOU RETURN, THEN I WILL RESTORE YOU-- Before Me you will stand; And if you extract the precious from the worthless, You will become My spokesman. They for their part may turn to you, But as for you, you must not turn to them.
Deuteronomy 4:30 - "When you are in distress and all these things have come upon you, in the latter days YOU WILL RETURN TO THE LORD your God and listen to His voice.
Isaiah 31:6 - RETURN TO HIM from whom you have deeply defected, O sons of Israel.
Isaiah 55:7 - Let the wicked forsake his way And the unrighteous man his thoughts; AND LET HIM RETURN TO THE LORD, And He will have compassion on him, And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon.
Jeremiah 4:1 - If thou wilt RETURN, O Israel, saith the LORD, RETURN UNTO ME: and if thou wilt put away thine abominations out of my sight, then shalt thou not remove.
Hosea 6:1 - COME, AND LET US RETURN UNTO THE LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.
Hosea 12:6 - THEREFORE TURN THOU TO THY GOD: keep mercy and judgment and wait on thy God continually.
Hosea 14:1 - O Israel, RETURN UNTO THE LORD THY GOD; for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity.
Zechariah 1:3 - Therefore say thou unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; TURN YE UNTO ME, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will turn unto you, saith the LORD of hosts.
Joel 2:12 - "Yet even now," declares the LORD, "RETURN TO ME with all your heart, And with fasting, weeping and mourning;
Job 22:23 - If thou RETURN to the Almighty, thou shalt be built up, thou shalt put away iniquity far from thy tabernacles.
Lamentations 3:40 - Let us search and try our ways, and TURN AGAIN to the Lord.
2 Chronicles 15:4 - But when they in their trouble DID TURN UNTO THE LORD GOD of Israel, and sought him, HE WAS FOUND OF THEM.
Psalm 78:34 - When He killed them, then they SOUGHT Him, And RETURNED and SEARCHED DILIGENTLY FOR GOD.
Unfortunately, your line of thinking is a logical fallacy that's as old as dirt: you cannot infer ability from an imperative. In other words, if you think about it, you'll realize that it's a fact: just because you see a person receive a command does not mean the person has the ability to obey the command.
EG: A back-seat driver can yell "STOP THE CAR", but if the driver is drunk, he doesn't have the ability to stop the car. Or a crowd can yell to a trapped arson victim "GET OUT OF THE HOUSE", but if the victim can't get to the fire escape, they will die in fire.
Those examples may appear extreme, but Martin Luther addressed precisely your points page 159-161 of "Bondage of the Will", and described it an essential truth of logical reasoning. He said to Erasmus:
"Even grammarians and schoolboys on street corners know that nothing more is signified by verbs in the imperative mood than what ought to be done, and that what is done or can be done should be expressed by words in the indicative"
..and perhaps more specifically...
"The passages of Scripture you cite are imperative; and they prove and establish nothing about the ability of man, but only lay down what is and what not to be done." p161
And of course, Luther wasn't the first to observe this truth. Aristotle (and many other philosophers before him) acknowledged this as well.
Even the Bible acknowledges this truth:
[+] Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil. (Jer 13:23)
In conclusion, man has a sin nature. Because of his sin nature, he cannot help but desire sin.
Just because we see commands for him to do otherwise does not mean he can.
He needs his nature changed.
He needs to be regenerated.
Salvation by Grace Through Faith - For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. That is what James 2:10 states, but we will use "your" words for this reply..."You" just exclaimed Damnation on Tim Foster...Pray tell what place does your statement place YOU in the eyes of God? My self I like to spend some Quality time in Romans (Mostly Romans 9 for this subject) but Truth can be found throughout the Scriptures and the TRUTH is this: Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
Be blessed and have a Godly day (Don't condemn Folks to Damnation please...It's NOT Godly)
None of those texts contradict what Sproul is saying.
Every single text you're citing was given to God's people. Not to become God's people but because that's God's will for His people. God breaks the chains that enslave us to sin in order that we become free of the power of sin and choose to obey Him.
The Pilgrim ACTS 16:29-31
29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED?
31 And they said, BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
The BIBLICAL answer to this question as clearly stated in this verse is simply BELIEVE.
**The Reformer’s answer to this question is, “well actually sorry bro there’s actually nothing you can do you gotta be elected to believe first then God has to effectually call you and then He gives you the faith to believe.”
If it was unconditional the answer would’ve been, “NOTHING.
YOU’VE EITHER BEEN ELECTED OR YOU HAVEN’T.”
But what was the answer?
There was a CONDITION.
What was the condition?
THEY HAD TO BELIEVE.
The condition was FAITH in Jesus Christ.
Clearly a NT passage that asserts man has the freewill to make a conscious decision for Christ.
The Pilgrim John does not refute that.
...According to John 1:12,13 do you have to receive Him first in order to be given power to become His son, or does He give you power to be His son first so you can then receive Him?
Does He give power to them that believe or does He give power so you can then believe afterwards?
JOHN 1:12,13
12 BUT AS MANY AS RECEIVED HIM, TO THEM GAVE HE POWER TO BECOME THE SONS OF GOD, EVEN TO THEM THAT BELIEVE ON HIS NAME:
13 WHICH WERE BORN, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but OF GOD.
**The born again process is not of the will of man but of God.
Faith happens BEFORE and not during.
Regeneration is 100% God and 0% man.
It’s clear that the regeneration in verse 13 happens only to those in verse 12 who RECEIVED Him.
Sprouls said, " if our choices are determined by our personal desires" how then are we free. This is having an assumption that we only have one desire in our hearts, but in reality, humans have many, and mostly conflicting desires, most of them over good and evil deeds. Desires may have enslave you to do certain things, but to which desire are you going to follow will need some hard weighing of possible resulting events that you'll eventually find it more beneficial to you. And man doesn't always choose evil over good, we sometimes choose good, meaning we are both capable of doing good and evil deeds. Free will occurs when you are in need which among your desires must you comply to. You doesn't even need to have a belief in Christ or recognise any god to feel the urge to do good. People just sometimes do good or bad things.
according to calvinists freewill just means you can do what you will. the rub, however, is that calvinists say human will is evil so that anything we want to do will be evil. in other words, you cannot choose to do anything that is good. it is a question of whether you accept this wacky definition of "freewill" or not.
Calvinism is satanic "do what thou wilt" and "keep on sinning that grace may abound".
Please read my response to RC Sproul’s “fruitless deeds of darkness-philosophy- that needed to be exposed (Eph 5:11)”because it’s even worse than that. Two have already stopped becoming christians. They previously commented on this site and found the lecture to be way too much for them to just even come to the simple knowledge of God through Jesus while the other felt hopelessness.
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
We don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
If we mean by free will that fallen man has the ability to chose as he wants, then of course he has free will. If we mean by that term that man in his fallen state has the moral power and ability to choose righteousness, then free will is far to grandiose a term to apply to fallen man. Every choice that we make is free, and every choice that we make is determined, but what determines it is me, and this we call self-determination.
It is caused by something else.
Determinism means that things happen to me strictly by virtue of external forces. In addition to external forces that are factors in determining what happens to us, there are also internal forces that are determining factors. If my choices flow out of my disposition, and out of my desires, and if my actions are an effect that have causes and reasons behind them, then my personal desire, in a very real sense, determines my personal choices. If my desires determine my choice, how then can I be free? Self determination is not the denial of freedom, but the essence of freedom. For the self to be able to determine, its own choices, is what free will is all about.
To be able to choose what you want. The problem with sinners, is that sinners can do, what the sinner wants to do. Where is the problem? The problem, is in the root of the desires of the heart.
When we talk about moral ability, we talk about the ability to be righteous as well as to be sinful. Man was created with the ability to be righteous, or to be sinful, but man has fallen, and because he is, he no longer has the ability in and of himself to be perfect, because he is born in sin.
hyper- calvanists also have a problem _Adam and Eve must have been created with the power of choice, or God would not have given them a command and punished them for disobeying it!!
Bob Free they say only them have free will
'Knowing" that Adam and Eve had "Free Will"...Why did God Place the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil in the center of the garden? The ONLY logical answer is that God placed it there because He KNEW they would eat of it..."Free Will" had no more to do with it that the nutrients in the soil. Both the tree and the planting of it were "God Will" (pfft at "free will")
You see the Serpent had what Adam and Eve did NOT have prior to eating of the fruit...Cunning. The Serpent FOOLED them, and God knew ahead of time that he would. Sooo, that brings us to the "Why" Because we are saved through GRACE!! We are NOT saved through Intelligence, wishes wills or wants or "Free Will" We are saved by the Mercy of God. God saved me...from me.
But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” That thar is Romans 9:20 Sir That Bible of yours is good reading :)
do you even know the difference between calvinism and hyper-calvinism?
Adam and Eve had free will and also Liberty. Watch again.
I have 2 questions:
1. "Because he (man) has evil inclination, a desire to sin, he sins".
This, sounds more to me like another kind of determinism. After the human's fall, we are unable to be perfect and keep sinning; and in my understanding it looks like human is in fact *determined* to have greater desire to sin rather than obey God (by whoever, I don't want to imagine).
My question is, even before humans are "determined" to sin, how about Adam and Eve? What then we call the ability to trust God rather than trust yourself and eat the Forbidden Fruit? Isn't it "free will" as how the philosophical world understands it? Obviously Adam and Eve were not a sinner before the fall, so were they able to be free from the "sinful determinism" and chose to trust God instead? If so, then was God sovereign even over Adam and Eve's decision to disobey Him? Did God allow Adam and Eve the ability to trust and love Him back? Was the act of creating the Forbidden Fruit and letting humans sin actually according to God's plan?
2. If Adam and Even really were abled to have "free will" to choose to trust or disobey God, will God return that ability to us once we will be raised from the death to meet Him in Heaven?
Greetings from Vietnam. I'm not trying to make any war here, just some honest thoughts of mine after watching the whole lecture.
Those are some deep questions.and your first one is probably one of the biggest one in the bible...
Check out Pastor John Popper on this topic..he's done a great study on the origins of sin..
Basically the Devil affected the will of Adam and Eve..by his words ..he inclined them to desire to sin..
John piper traces it further back.. because the Devil was the cause of Adam and Eves sin...but he looks at the deeper question of what caused the Devils sin...
There's no clear concrete answer..he does present a good one though...
In terms of will believers be returned to a state like where adam and Eve was..the answer is clearly no...we will not be like how Adam and Eve was..
We will be new creatures...ones that don't need to reproduce like how humans do now..
We won't get involved marriage...so it's presumed we won't have the desire...
It's all speculation about what believers will be..but by all indicators..we will not be like Adam and Eve.....the potential for sin won't be there...
When RC Sproul was asked the same question as to why Adam and Eve disobeyed God before they ever sinned? His answer was “I don’t know.” Meaning, RC Sproul doesn’t know why Adam and Eve despite having no sinful nature before they disobeyed God had chosen to disobey. Simply put, RC Sproul had a prejudicial belief based on knowledge in philosophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, RC Sproul will have to contend with the prevailing atheistic philosophy that “if man has freewill, there is no God.”
Therefore, RC Sproul’s lecture about freewill is really foolish.
Allow me to respond to his lecture…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
So in other words R.C Sproul is stating the word freewill or the word voluntary should not be in the scriptures.
There are more written infallible word of God a.k.a scriptures where the word "freewill" is used.
Leviticus 22:18 K.J.V
Speak unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them, Whatsoever he be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that will offer his oblation for all his vows, and for all his FREEWILL offerings, which they will offer unto the LORD for a burnt offering;
Leviticus 22:18
KJV Dictionary Definition: freewill
FREEWILL', n.
1. The power of directing our own actions without restraint by necessity or fate.
2. Voluntariness; spontaneousness.
av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/freewill.html
Eduardo Evangelista
Colossians 2:18-19 K.J.V Let no man beguile you of your reward in a VOLUNTARY humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.
Colossians 2:18-19
KJV Dictionary Definition: voluntariness
VOL'UNTARINESS, n. The state of being voluntary or optional.
voluntary
VOL'UNTARY, a. L. voluntarius, from voluntas, will, from volo.
1. Acting by choice or spontaneously; acting without being influenced or impelled by another.
2. Free, or having power to act by choice; not being under restraint; as, man is a voluntary agent.
3. Proceeding from choice or free will.
That sin or guilt pertains exclusively to voluntary action, is the true principle of orthodoxy.
4. Willing; acting with willingness.
She fell to lust a voluntary prey.
5. Done by design; purposed; intended. If a man kills another by lopping a tree, here is no voluntary murder.
6. Done freely, or of choice; proceeding from free will. He went into voluntary exile. He made a voluntary surrender.
7. Acting of his own accord; spontaneous; as the voluntary dictates of knowledge.
8. Subject to the will; as the voluntary motions of an animal. Thus the motion of a leg or an arm is voluntary, but the motion of the heart is involuntary.
A voluntary escape, in law, is the escape of a prisoner by the express consent of the sheriff.
Voluntary jurisdiction, is that which is exercised in doing that which no one opposes; as in granting dispensations, &c.
Voluntary affidavit or oath, is one made in an extra-judicial matter.
Voluntary waste, is that which is committed by positive acts.
VOL'UNTARY, n.
1. One who engages in any affair of his own free will; a volunteer. In this sense, volunteer is now generally used.
2. In music, a piece played by a musician extemporarily, according to his fancy. In the Philosophical Transactions, we have a method of writing voluntaries, as fast as the musician plays the notes. This is by a cylinder turning under the keys of the organ.
3. A composition for the organ.
av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/voluntariness.html
you must understand that spontaneous choice is a technical term in his lecture... spontaneous without prior bias
@@DarkPa1adin You calvinists love to talk about the DECREES of God how about (Ezra 7:13 K.J.V)?
Ezra 7:13
I make a DECREE, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm, which 👉are MINDED of THEIR OWN FREEWILL H5069👈 to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee.
K.J.V
H5069 - nĕdab (Aramaic)
H5069 - נְדַב
Transliteration: nĕdab (Aramaic)Pronunciation: ned·av'
Part of Speech: verb
Root Word (Etymology): Corresponding to נָדַב (H5068)TWOT Reference: 2848
Outline of Holy Scriptures Usage:
to volunteer, offer freely
(Ithpael)
to volunteer
to give freely, offer freely
KJV Translation Count: 4x
The KJV translates Strongs H5069 in the following manner: freely offered (1x), freewill offering (1x), offering willingly (1x), minded of their own freewill (1x).Strong's Definitions: נְדַב nᵉdab, ned-ab'; (Aramaic) corresponding to H5068; be (or give) liberal(-ly):-(be minded of...own) freewill (offering), offer freely (willingly).
Isn't the DECREE of the LORD in (Ezra 7:13 K.J.V) that The LORD is DECREEING those mention in (Ezra 7:13 K.J.V) that they know that the LORD has DECREE that they have FREEWILL to FREELY VOLUNTEER to go up to Jerusalem & that they were NOT determined by God to VOLUNTEER to go up to Jerusalem?
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself included) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You (we) don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
@@DarkPa1adin
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself included) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You (we) don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
I can understand how the illusion of acting freely exists in every moment (to sin or not to sin) but I would argue that the circumstances and factors that led to the moments where you feel as though you have the ability to freely act are violated upon by a cascade of events and circumstances that you were not able to freely choose. For example some one born in Iran did not choose the location in which they were born, they did not choose the language that they speak, they did not choose their family, they did not choose the school they were born into, and therefore could did not choose all of the experiences that led them to a point of adopting a set a views that resulted in them becoming a member of the Taliban and committing atrocities. This person was in a causal chain of events that preceded them and effected the outcome of their life. I can’t see how this is free in any capacity. Even to the most trivial decisions they are all tied to the intention predicated by a host of actions that came before them.
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
@@papabear887 sir, this is a Wendy’s.
Just kidding, I wrote this comment 9 months ago when I was a Christian but now don’t find the arguments in favor of God sufficient which may simplify a lot of the mental gymnastics you seem to be jumping through to make an all powerful, knowing, and mighty God have to jump through to make free will coherent.
Let’s back up and give some reasons as to why a belief in God is even justified to begin with?
@@JTOG94Thanks for your response (seriously). I posted my disagreements against RC Sproul’s assertions in your comments as in all the others for two reasons. 1) I am curious what would people respond back with to my disagreements with RC Sproul (a supposedly authoritative figure in calvinism) why even the issue of freewill is something to be philosophically scrutinized when the matter is religious 2) My other purpose is in the realm that if man has no freewill, who should be held accountable for actions done against humanity when evil was perpetrated.
If I understand your position correctly, you were once a christian but no longer holds that belief.
I have then no issue with you as my postings were
meant for religious people especially calvinists. To each his own.
Thanks again.
@@papabear887 I’m going to reread your comment a bit later today, I was rushed yesterday and didn’t fully comprehend. Still interested in what you have to say about the matter.
GOODLY FRUIT COMES FROM NURTURE OF THE TREE NOOOT THE NATURE OF THE TREE AS THE NATURE OF THE TREE IS TO GROW N BLOW N BLOOM YET WITHOUT NURTURE THE TREE DOES NOT GROW! GOD BLESS LIFE! THE SOWER OF THE TREE DETERMINES THE GROWTH N STRENGTH N LONGEVITY OF IT! 🌹🌞🛡🗡🌏👑🌹👸🎁🌿🌊
Bonnie Burrello huh
@@robinl6659 A TREE IS PLANTED, ROOTED, N STILL, FOR THE TREE TO GROW N BLOOM THE NURTURING OF THE SOIL OF THE SUNLIGHT OF THE RAIN MUST BE OR THE TREE IS ONLY STILL N IS NOT FRUITFUL TILL THE TREE ROT! THE NATURE OF THE TREE IS TO BE STILL, IT IS NURTURE THAT GIVES THE TREE MOVEMENT IN IT'S STANDING! NURTURE OVER NATURE OR NOTHING BLOOMS THUS NO FRUIT! DO YOU WATER N WEED YOUR VEGETABLE GARDEN OR FLOWER GARDEN? THUS YOUR NURTURING GIVES YOUR GARDEN LIFE THAT THE GARDEN SUSTAIN YOUR LIFE! GOD BLESS LIFE ALWAYS!🙏🌹🌞🛡🗡🌏
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!
Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings!
Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
RSV
Only-monos
God-theos
Monos theos
Monotheism
The Father
Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)!
Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God!
Jesus has a God!
Jesus died!
God can’t die!
God raised Jesus from the dead!
Our inclinations are called "affections" by Aristotle. We are given our affections, we do not choose them ourselves.
Love the Sproulian view!!
Same :-)
mccafferty697 :(
May I be so bold as to correct you and offer the correct term, 'biblical' in the place of sproulian?
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
I have two major contentions with the content of this lecture: first is in the substance of the discussion itself, with respect to free will; the second is in the apparent approach that was taken to assessing the topic.
1. First, the topic of free will is not exhausted without a thorough discussion about what constitutes the "self," or the notion of the self. When Sproul says "What determines my choice is me, and this is what we call self-determination" he hasn't thoroughly detailed what constitutes the self. Consequently, the conclusion of free will that he arrives at is not satisfying to the average person looking for free will, upon further inspection.
When we have desires, we experience them; they _happen_ to us. We don't choose the desires we have, and Sproul acknowledges this. As he recognizes, the inclinations we have have a causal relationship to the choices we make; or in other words, the choices we make are caused by our inclinations or desires. We do not choose these desires. Anyone can test this on themselves. When you have the desire to do something, or even a thought about something, it just appears to you, you just become conscious of it. Being that this is not something you choose, and is responsible for your choice, where is the freedom in that? This is not the kind of free will anyone is looking for or satisfied with, and it just seems to be playing disingenuous games with language.
So, on the point of what constitutes the self, what does it mean to say that _you_ choose something? If you don't choose your desires, and your desires cause your choices, then the logical entailment of that leaves you with the same determined conclusion that you actually have no say in the matter. You are simply experiencing the desires and the choices occurring to you. What else could the self be with respect to choice? There's no room left here for a "self" that has any kind of free will in a meaningful sense. To say that one freely chooses as a self, but for that self to simply be a being that experiences desires and choices occurring, is not to provide any kind of freedom of the will, in a libertarian sense, that anyone is looking for.
2. There seems to be an issue here with how this topic is approached. This isn't being approached as an openminded philosophical investigation. These are the kind of complications that arise when someone is looking at a concept through the lens of theology or religiosity. When someone approaches a concept, like free will, with a preconceived worldview that is bound by the presuppositions of dogma, one is limited by those in considering other potentially true and valid explanations.
So, when someone approaches this concept with an already established religious bias, it prevents them from considering all the relevant aspects pertaining to the concept, and leads them to conclusions which are detrimental to individuals in groups based on the dogmatic limitations.
There are already philosophical labels for some of these concepts. What Sproul is offering is what is known in philosophy as compatiblism. Compatibilism is the idea that essentially redefines free will to mean that a choice is free as long as someone is capable of making that choice without any external force preventing them from doing so. This is a category mistake in the discussion of Free Will as people intend to convey it with respect to libertarian free will on one end and determinism on the other. To say that your choice is "free" as long as nothing is preventing you from making the choice, is not satisfying if you aren't actually freely choosing what it is that you want. And this is never resolved by Sproul.
3. As a supplemental point, there seems to be this fallacious appeal to a need for some kind of free will as a moral solution. The fact that a tenable moral structure is desired, is not a substantiation of free will. The fact that someone would like to have a solid framework for free will to support moral concepts does not itself give support to any morality. It also does not require that there must be any kind of free will. Objective morality is a concept that needs to be substantiated in its own right, and that is also another category which is left wanting.
Nut job no 1 is going to qiit their job read all that
What a detached self righteous unrepentant narcissist loonball
@@iacoponefurio1915 What? Because I engaged with the substance of the video? I didn't write any more than the speaker said. How does that make me any of the things you said? I get engagement with many people on a ton of topics like this. Why do you think what you said is a good thing to say, or reasonable at all?
Fantastic lecture!
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
Which people are preaching the good news of the kingdom around the world to all nations like Jesus christ Mathew 4:23,24:14,28:19-20,mark 13:10?
The error of his analysis is that he begins with 'spontaneous free will.' But free will in not just knee jerk spontaneity but more routinely by 'considered decision making.' Thereafter he goes off the rails in his argument. The fallen nature of corruption does not negate free will. It is just corrupt free will which is done every day by all people. He starts from a straw man argument. then attacks his straw man.
I agree.
I completely agree with you. But RC Sproul made it even worse.
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.
R C. Spouts poppycock!
God does His Predetermining and Free Will this comment section thinks outside the Holy Bible and specially the book of Job
@@papabear887 God is capable of predetermining and free will
"Sovereignty" and "will" need to be properly defined and understood. Sovereignty is "Supreme power and autonomy". That does NOT mean that it is always exercised or used down to the minutest detail, even though it could be. Will is "something that is desired or ordained". God is not willing that any should perish. "Believe, Choose, Repent, Accept, IF", etc., etc.
Allow me to respond…
RC Sproul says,
“Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.”
Then he immediately follows it with a question:
“How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?”
Therefore, RC Sproul concludes,
“Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God.
What do I mean by that?
Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism,
‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’
Then the immediate question is,
‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’
Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude:
GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill.
Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say,
“Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!”
This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced.
It goes like this:
Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.”
So the bait and switch has already begun:
From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this:
“Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues?
To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out).
However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations.
Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”.
Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work!
Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting.
What RC Sproul is saying is like this:
a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call
on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…”
….all because of this doctrine:
“MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters.
It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3.
James 1:27 writes,
“ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.”
Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes,
“ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.”
You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.