"For if man has lost his freedom, and is forced to serve sin, and cannot will good, what conclusion can more justly be drawn concerning him, than that he sins and wills evil necessarily?" Martin Luther BW pg. 149

"...'if thou art willing' is a verb in the subjunctive mood, which asserts nothing...a conditional statement asserts nothing indicatively." "if thou art willing", "if thou hear", "if thou do" declare, not man's ability, but his duty. pg 157

"the commandments are not given inappropriately or pointlessly; but in order that through them the proud, blind man may learn the plague of his impotence, should he try to do as he is commanded." pg. 160

Speaking to Erasmus, "Throughout your treatment you forget that you said that 'free-will' can do nothing without grace, and you prove that 'free-will' can do all things without grace! Your inferences and analogies "For if man has lost his freedom, and is forced to serve sin, and cannot will good, what conclusion can more justly be drawn concerning him, than that he sins and wills evil necessarily?" Martin Luther BW pg. 149

"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. How is it that you theologians are twice as stupid as schoolboys, in that as soon as you get hold of a single imperative verb you infer an indicative meaning, as though the moment a thing is commanded it is done, or can be done? pg 159

"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." pg 161

"Does it follow from: 'turn ye' that therefore you can turn? Does it follow from "'Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart' (Deut 6.5) that therefore you can love with all your heart? What do arguments of this kind prove,  but the 'free-will' does not need the grace of God, but can do all things by its own power...But it does not follow from this that man is converted by his own power, nor do the words say so; they simply say: "if thou wilt turn,  telling man what he should do. When he knows it, and sees that he cannot do it, he will ask whence he may find ability to do it..." 164

"By the law is the knowledge of sin' [Rom 3:20], so the word of grace comes only to those who are distressed by a sense of sin and tempted to despair." pg. 168

As to why some are touched by the law and others not, so that some receive and others scorn the offer of grace...[this is the] hidden will of God, Who, according to His own counsel, ordains such persons as He wills to receive
and partake of the mercy preached and offered." pg. 169

The "imperative or hypothetical passages, or wishes, by which is signified, not what we can do, or do do...but what we ought to do, and what is required of us, so that our impotence may be made known to us and the knowledge of sin may be given to us." 174

God Incarnate says; 'I would, and thou wouldst not." God Incarnate, I repeat, was sent for this purpose, to will, say, do, suffer and offer to all me, all that is necessary for salvation; albeit He offends many who, being abandoned or hardened by God's secret will of Majesty, do not receive Him thus willing, speaking, doing, and offering. As John says: "The light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness com comprehendeth it not' (John 1.5)

And again: "He came unto his own, and His own received Him not. (v. 11)"The law indicates the impotence of man and the saving power of God..."if any man will come after me': 'he that wills to save his life'; 'if ye love me'; 'if ye shall continue'. In sum, as I have said-let every occurrence of the conjunction 'if', and all imperative verbs, be collected together (so we may help the Diatribe...) [indicating that all commands to believe or follow Christ are conditional, not stating man's ability]

Let all the 'free-will' in the world do all it can with all its strength; it will never give rise to a single instance of ability to avoid being hardened if God does not give the Spirit, or of meriting mercy if it is left to its own strength." p. 202

"omnipotence and foreknowledge of God, I repeat, utterly destroy the doctrine of 'free-will'...doubtless it gives the greatest possible offense to common sense or natural reason, that God, Who is proclaimed as being full of mercy and goodness, and so on, should of His own mere will abandon, harden and damn men, as though He delighted in the sins and great eternal torments of such poor wretches. it seems an iniquitous, cruel, intolerable thought to think of God; and it is this that has been such a stumbling block to so many great men down through the ages. And who would not stumble at it? I have stumbled at it myself more than once, down to the deepest pit of despair, so that I wished I had never been made a man. (That was before I knew how health-giving that despair was, and how close to grace.)" Luther BW pg. 217

"...it was not of the merits of Jacob or Esau, 'but of Him that Calleth that it was said of Sara: the elder shall serve the younger' Paul is discussing whether they attained to what was spoken of them by the power or merits of
'free-will"; and he proves they they did not, but that Jacob attained what Esau did not solely by the grace of "Him that Calleth"224

Now, since on God's own testimony, men are 'flesh', they can savour of nothing but the flesh; therefore 'free-will can avail only to sin. And if, while the Spirit of God is calling and teaching among them, they go from bad to worse, what could they do when left to themselves, without the Spirit of God? Your [Erasmus] observation that Moses is speaking of the men of that age is not to the point at all. The same is true of all men, for all are 'flesh'; as Christ says, 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh' (john 3:6) How grave a defect this is, He Himself there teaches, when he says: 'Except a man be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (v. 5)...I call a man ungodly if he is without the Spirit of God; for Scripture says that the Spirit is given to justify the ungodly. As Christ distinguished the Spirit from the flesh, saying: "that which is born of the flesh is flesh', and adds that which is born of the flesh cannot enter the kingdom of God', it obviously follows that whatever is flesh is ungodly, under God's wrath, and a stranger to His kingdom. And if it is a stranger to God's kingdom and Spirit, it follows of necessity that it is under the kingdom and spirit of Satan. For there is no middle kingdom between the kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Satan, which are ever at war with each other. 241, 253

"I say that man without the grace of God nonetheless remains the general omnipotence of God who effects, and moves and impels all things in a necessary, infallible course; but the effect of man's being carried along is nothing--that is, avails nothing in God's sight, nor is reckoned to be anything but sin. 265

"the Baptist's word means that man can receive nothing unless given him from above; so that free-will is nothing!"

I say that man, before he is renewed into the new creation of the Spirit's kingdom, does and endeavours nothing to prepare himself for that new creation and kingdom, and when he is re-created has does and endeavors nothing towards his perseverance in that kingdom; but the Spirit alone works both blessings in us, regenerating us, and preserving us when regenerate, without ourselves..." 268

"All the passages in the Holy Scriptures that mention assistance are they that do away with "free-will", and these are countless...For grace is needed, and the help of grace is given, because "free-will" can do nothing."
270

I found the following
quotes online. Because I need to get up early in the morning and I
don't have time to look through Luther's entire book to prove my point,
I took the citations from

I am failing to see how Luther defined free will any other way then I presented it in my christian history quote. In order to "prove your point" you must show how Luther defined free will other then the way I presented.

If you remember my quote

Quote

Erasmus of Rotterdam accepted this conclusion when he argued that “by ‘free will’ [liberum arbitrium] … we understand a power of the human will by which man may be able to direct himself towards, or turn away from, what leads to eternal salvation”.

2.4. Luther
Martin → Luther  disputed this thesis of Erasmus from an early date, and most fully in his Bondage of the Will. In relation to God, he claimed, we can only receive. We can do nothing to achieve our own → salvation. Decisive here is the focus on the doctrines of → sin and → justification and a corresponding understanding of → predestination. Those who speak about free will deny that we have salvation only by the merits of Christ in → faith.

Erwin Fahlbusch and Geoffrey William Bromiley, vol. 2, The Encyclopedia of Christianity (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill, 1999-2003), 351.

The definition of free will that Luther was arguing against was the works based salvation of coming to God apart from his grace and on your own merits. That was what was termed free will back then, it has been like that even since Pelegian and Augustine.

I was giving the broader
view. Yes, Erasmus was arguing for Catholic meritorious salvation, but
he was doing so based on the same philosophical basis you have,
libertarian free will. The Catholic can work to do good works unto
salvation because they has a free will. You say man can incline himself
to God and believe based on his free will. Free will is the operating
force in both systems that actualizes atonement unto Salvation. My
point in quoting Luther was to show the nature of his debate. He was
not simply rejecting Free will unto meriting Salvation. He was
rejecting free will all together when it comes to actualizing the power
of salvation. Luther destroys Catholic Dogma by destroying the very
philosophical footing that you are trying to stand on. In Luther's
book, we are not free at all. We are all slaves, unable to come to God
without God's Gracious act of monergistic grace, Grace Alone.
Therefore, Luther's argument with Erasmus is completely relevant to the
Free Will debate today.

God Bless.



PS: Luther's
understanding of simply receiving it is not the same as your, Free
Will, receive or reject gift from God. Gifts from God are things we get
without necessarily having a choice in the matter, eg, birth, parents,
individual gifting, or aptitudes. He used receive to simply mean to
acquire.

Please tell me what I believe concerning free will. I think you just made a big assumption. You have jumped to a conclusion that has no basis. It is also known as a straw man fallacy.. (No syllogism necessary)

Spiritual Blessings in Christ

You may be right. Do you believe man has the ability to choose to do otherwise, or do you simply believe man has the ability to Choose what ever he wants to choose? Yes, to the first question is Geisler and Erasmas' view. Yes to the second question is the view I share with Edwards, Luther, Calvin, etc.
God Bless.

Our choices are limited by many things. We cannot choose to grow wings.. We do not choose our parents.. We do not choose many things. Those things are put in place by the determinate counsel of God. We cannot choose God unless he chooses to draw us. Our bondage in sin prevents us from choosing God. We are sinful creatures and can only act properly by the grace of God alone. 
After God draws us we are enabled to believe and be united with the God we were seperated from. Faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of God. I believe the gospel is the power of God unto salvation for those that believe. I believe it is through the work of the Spirit through the word that our will is enabled to choose God. We can respond to God but we cannot come to God out of our own self determined will. Our response is what I call free will, because our response is just that. It is something that was first brought about by the grace of God.
Hope that helps clarify..
Blessings in Christ alone... 

You did not answer my question. By simply redefining words, I can come up with concepts in your statement ranging from full fledged Calvinism to Semi-Peligianism. What do you mean by Free will? What do you mean by Draw. What do you mean by unable? It is in the definition of these words that the argument rests. You need to define them very precisely. Any 5 point "strong" Calvinist unfamiliar with the historical debate could say the same things. John Wesley could say the same thing. How does this help? I think your explanation just added to the confusion.

I appologize that my response was not very clear for you. Most of my defitinions come from the scripture. As I said before free will is self determinism"self" means it comes from myself "determined" is a descision or something decided on. So when you place the two together ( I make my own decisions ) As I showed you before (If you carefully read) We are completley free to choose whatever we want. But our choices are placed within boundries. 
Oxford concise defines it like this (to which I agree)

free
will

Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004).
Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

One may say that is good and fine but is their examples of people acting in sucg a way in the scriptures. To this I reply absolutley.... There were many children of God in the old testament that offered "free will offerings" this offering was offered under "no constraint". 

We can see this free will offering in many passages such as:

Lev. 22:21,23;23:38; Num. 29:39; Deut. 12:6,17; 2 Chr. 31:14; Ezra 3:5; Ezra7:16; Ezra 8:28; Psa. 119:108.

freewill offering, i.e., offering or sacrifice that is voluntary and not compulsory, and thus prompted only by the impulse of the donor


Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains  : Hebrew (Old Testament) (electronic ed.) (DBLH 5607, #1). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.In this it is not the sacrifices themselves that were important. I just want to note that men do have the ability to make self determined choices and be promted simply by themselves.

However moving on it would seem fit to define drawing:
Let me started with a negative. Some would say God drawing is actually God forcing man against his will. I deny this. If God draws us through his word how can that be so ? It is in Gods word that we see his love for us. That love is attractive and it draws his elect unto him. In Gods word we see his nature, his nature is so attracting that one cannot help but want to get to know this wonderous creator. (of course we know that some do resist the Holy Spirit). Therefore this drawing is not a force of the will ( it is not rape ) But a drawing of attraction.

Unable is defined as:


Soanes, C.,
& Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

So in summation 
Our choices are limited by many things. We cannot choose to grow wings.. We do not choose our parents.. We do not choose many things. Those things are put in place by the determinate counsel of God. We cannot choose God unless he chooses to draw us. Our bondage in sin prevents us from choosing God. We are sinful creatures and can only act properly by the grace of God alone. 
After God draws us we are enabled to believe and be united with the God we were seperated from. Faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of God. I believe the gospel is the power of God unto salvation for those that believe. I believe it is through the work of the Spirit through the word that our will is enabled to choose God. We can respond to God but we cannot come to God out of our own self determined will. Our response is what I call free will, because our response is just that. It is something that was first brought about by the grace of God.

Hope that helps clear up.. 
Blessings in Christ alone...

This whole topic of free-will offering is completely besides the point. We know that it refers to the voluntary choice of certain individuals. The only reason why anyone would bring this up is because they do not understand what the Reformed are saying. WE HAVE NEVER SAID THAT GOD FORCES MAN TO DO ANYTHING PERTAINING TO THIS TOPIC. Man acts according to his own will. He may be so morally wicked as to never chose to do something, but that restriction is found in himself. It is not a constraint added to him by God. We also know no natural man can do anything to please God. We know man hates God. Therefore, natural man will never do a free-will offering, or any analogous act in other dispensations, unless his is morally made able to do these acts. As the conversation has developed over the years, Man is naturally able to do anything he can physically do, but he is only morally able to do that which we would free chose to do. Therefore, every man can(natural ability, nothing is restraining him from the outside) do a free-will offering, but only drawn/regenerate man can(moral ability, he does freely chose with right motives) do the free-will offering.

But, if one defines free will as the ability to do that which is against one's nature, ie, able to chose to do otherwise between two choices that are possible, then no we do not agree. Man's moral inability requires the conclusion that man cannot chose to do otherwise when it comes to sin verses not sin in his natural state.

WE HAVE NEVER SAID THAT GOD FORCES MAN TO DO ANYTHING PERTAINING TO THIS TOPIC.

The Greek work elkuse means to drag into court or to draw water.

would like to point out defining words via the dictionary doesn't help much in these discussions. How are you using these words in particular, at this time? Using definitions like this is cause confusion. It is allowing two different groups of people to say the same things while meaning different things. This is why Edwards and Luther's books are so long. They were making sure everyone knows exactly what they believe. They defined their terms. You are still playing with semantics. Please stop playing this game.

DS I hope you do not mind if I respond here. I have been trying to let you both hash this out. But this is something I can not let go.

Men chose to go against their nature every day. One example is when I get paged at 2 in the morning because someones generator is not working and they need it fixed now. It is against my nature to give up sleep and go help this guy. But I do it because I know the consequences that will happen if I go with my nature and ignore the call. Christians and non christians alike have to make decisions on a daily basis that go against their nature. And MANY TIMES, the decisions they make go against their nature. To say a person can not make a decision which goes against his nature is just plain false.

The second comment was that man can not chose not to sin. I again disagree immensely. Again, We are dealt with temptation on a daily basis non christian and christian alike. And we do not always chose to sin. As a non believer I can be tempted by a young beauty to cheat on my wife. It does not mean I will chose to sin,, I can chose to not sin. And I do not have to be a christian to make this decision. It is called making a moral choice. One does not have to be a christian to make moral choices. Non Christians chose to make moral decisions every day and not sin. So yet again I must disagree with what Baptist said!

Yet many Jews and Gentiles who made these free will offerings will suffer eternal damnation. Because although they made the free will choice to give the free will offering. They thought these offerings saved them, and did not see what they were actually given to teach. If you were right. there would be no religion on earth exept true christianity. There would be no Judaism, No islam. No legalistic christianity. Because man could never chose to do things they thought would make them right with God of their own free will. There would be atheism, and true christianity alone. Because there would be those who hate God and those drawn by God and nothing else.

These facts alone show your theory to be in error.

Can you quote one catholic who teaches that they believe in a works based gospel? NO because they believe it is Gods grace that allows them to do the works, which in the end allow them to be saved.

Just because a romanist will defend to the death they do not teach a works based Gospel does not mean they do not in actuality teach this works based Gospel.

This is no different than a calvanist who denies God forces ones will. when in fact according to their faith God does just that. God changes a mans will so he goes against his own will and desires and choses Christ.

This is what they teach,, whether they deny it or not is another story.

I must be brief as I do not really have time until the weekends to post.. 

Let me ask you a question before you became a Christian did you lie every chance you got ? I know many.. non Christians that have morality... When a non Christian chooses to not to lie does that go against his nature ? I believe eternally gratefull pointed this out very clearly for you. Now will we choose to follow the living God apart from his gospel and grace ? No of course not... My definitions are simplistic because this conversation is simplistic... It is not rocket science...

Actually you believe that God changes mans will apart from them wanting him to. So yes, that is God forcing man to love him by changing their will. They were sinners prior, and according to you did not want to be saved. But according to you God saved them anyway by regenerating them and theirby making them love him. (to put it simply) 

Words are defined by context. Peter drew fish out of water but in John 6:44 there is no water... Is there a courtroom in the context ? Can you show me how helkyo is used as a forcive verb in ever context it appears ?

Notice bdag notes "attract"

② to draw a pers. in the direction of values for inner life, draw, attract, an extended fig. use of mng. 1 (Pla., Phdr. 238a; Epict. 2, 20, 15 ἡ φύσις ἕλκει; Aelian, NA 4, 13; Porphyr., Marc. 16 μόνη ἡ ἀρετὴ τ. ψυχὴν ἄνω ἕλκει καὶ πρὸς τὸ συγγενές; Jer 38:3; SSol 1:4; 4 Macc 14:13; 15:11; Jos., Ant. 15, 27; Ath. 26, 1 περὶ τὰ εἴδωλα) J 6:44. ἕλκ. πρός with acc. (Hierocles 25 p. 477 it is said of God ἑλκύσαι πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους; Ath., R. 75, 20 ἑλκούσης … ἐπιθυμίας πρὸς τροφήν): πρὸς ἐμαυτόν 12:32.

William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 318.

When words are used in a figurative sense do they mean the same thing as a lit. usage ?

Please also note:

ἕλκω (impf. εἷλκον ; fut. ἑλκύσω ; aor. εἵλκυσα, subj. 3 sg. ἑλκύσῃ ) draw, attract; drag (of coercion); haul in; draw (of swords)

Barclay Moon Newman, A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament. (Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; United Bible Societies, 1993), 58.

ἕλκω   helkō   draw, drag*
Only trans. in the NT. Literal: John 18:10: Simon drew the sword; 21:6, 11, of dragging fishing nets; Acts 16:19: Paul and Silas are dragged before the archons; 21:30: Paul is dragged out of the temple; Jas 2:6: the rich drag you into court. Fig.: John 6:44: “unless the Father … draws him”; 12:32: “I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.”
A. Oepke, TDNT II, 503f.; R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to John II (1979) 50, 393f.Horst Robert Balz and Gerhard Schneider, vol. 1, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990-), 435.

So please take the time to check my definition of draw up with some exegetical resources.. You of all people should know that a literal usage of the word does not have the same definition as a figurative usage of a word. 

Hmm... The words I used in my context are defined exactly how the dictionary defines them... So using the dictionary is very beneficial.. I am not playing semantics but using words in their proper usage... Again my context definitions are defined just as the dictionary quotes defined them.. I know you are not liking this very well... 

I am sorry, but you did not understand what I was saying. Man is not as sinful as man can be. Man can not do particular sins. Man can sin less, but man can never not sin. Everything natural man does is sin because every motive in his heart is sinful. There are no pure motives in natural man. This is why natural man cannot please God. This is what I meant by saying man cannot chose between sin and not sin. So, no; man not doing a particular sin is not going against his nature. Man believing in and worshiping a God for saving him while he still hates that God is going against nature. Do you see what I am getting at?

How is "forcing man to love him by Changing their will" "forcing them against their will"?

So, again what is holding them back in the context of John 6:44?

So, does man lack the skill, means, or opportunity to come to Christ? There are three definitions here. Which Definition?

Man not being as sinful as he can be is the traditional reformed position. I believed that you were going with the position that man cannot choose contrary to his nature.

Moral necessity, as defined by Edwards is "the necessity of connection and consequence, which arises from such moral causes, as the inclination, or motives, and the connection which there is in many cases between these, and such certain volitions and actions" (Winslow, Page 213). Moral necessity is the habits and dispositions, inclinations and motives of the heart that lead to volition. Moral inability consists of the "want of inclination" or the "strength of a contrary inclination" or the "want of sufficient motive" to push the will to act (Winslow, Page 216). This means that one cannot will that which is contrary to one own heart’s inclination.
So do we have the power of contrary choice? To choose other then our nature desires? In one post you seem to say that we do not have the power of contrary choice, yet in another you seem to say that we do because we are not as evil as we can be. 

Does the person ask to be regenerated before God regenerates them? Or does God force them to be regenerated so they will repent. Does he regenerate them against their will? Or is their will desiring to be regenerated by God before he regenerates them?

If men do have never heard the Gospel do they know salvation is by grace through faith? We cannot come to God unless the tutor leads us to Christ. The law, the gospel, the bible as a whole proclaims Christ. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe. If faith comes by hearing then it is through the gospel that God draws or enables us to come to him and repent. Blessed be God the Father that through his work the gospel is proclaimed to all men. It is through the gospel that we are attracted to God.