Sorry I missed your post John. We know what sin is. But there is a question here on what or how much free will we actually have. I posted Article 18 of the Confession as being a scripturally accurate statement. I think it is possible to harmonize this statement with the fact that although we have free will, everyone sins. The fact that everyone sins is evidence that our wills are not as free as some think.

How free do you think people think we are Mark? How free are we really? How is the fact that people sin evidence that we suffer a lack of freedom? Couldn't we say that the fact that people are converted is proof that they are completely free to choose to be saved?

How free are we really? That is the question. If we are free to choose to be saved then why hasn't someone yeilded to God fully before he or she committed sin. Sin is a deliberate choice to do wrong. Everyone has made that choice, so how is it that no one with free will ever choose not to sin? Is that by chance? What are the odds of that happeneing? The scriptures say it is no chance - that God has consigned all to sin so that He can have mercy on all. So what does that tell us about free will. Have another look at what the reformers taught in Article 18.

Article 18 has to do with Pelagianism, as I've pointed out several times now. I think this is the third time I'm presenting this quote:

They condemn the Pelagians and others, who teach that without the Holy Ghost, by the power of nature alone, we are able to love God above all things; also to do the commandments of God as touching "the substance of the act." For, although nature is able in a manner to do the outward work, (for it is able to keep the hands from theft and murder,) yet it cannot produce the inward motions, such as the fear of God, trust in God, chastity, patience, etc.

Melanchthon is talking about Pelagians. I don't understand why you keep bringing this up.

Ok, let's skip this, and consider your other questions.

Quote:

---

How free are we really? That is the question.

---

The question of how free we are can be answered in two basic ways, as far as the context of our discussion is concerned. One is that a person is free to do whatever he chooses to do. This is the libertarian or incompatibilistic view. This is the traditional SDA view, and what Ellen White taught.

The other way to answer the question is that a person is free to do whatever they want to do, or most desire to do. There will is in one sense determined, because all things are determined by God, but in another sense free, because God does not force anyone to do something they do not want to do. This was the view of the Reformers.

Quote:

---

If we are free to choose to be saved then why hasn't someone yielded to God fully before he or she committed sin.

---

I'm not seeing that this question makes any sense. I'll illustrate this as follows. Let A be the statement that one is free to choose to be saved. Let B be the statement that one can yield to God before sinning. You are suggesting the proposition that A should imply B: If one is free to choose to be saved, then one can yield to God before sinning.

This is equivalent to suggesting that ~B should ~A, the converse of the first proposition: if one cannot yield to God before sinning, then one is not free to choose to be saved. This proposition is clearly false, so therefore your original proposition is also false.

This is a formal proof. To state it in simple terms, there's no reason the conclusion you are stating should follow from the premise. That is, the fact that one does not yield one's self to God before sinning does not imply that one cannot freely choose to be saved.

Quote:

---

Sin is a deliberate choice to do wrong. Everyone has made that choice, so how is it that no one with free will ever choose not to sin? Is that by chance? What are the odds of that happeneing? The scriptures say it is no chance - that God has consigned all to sin so that He can have mercy on all.

---

Here you are saying that God is responsible for people sinning before the age of accountability, correct? I think I'd better clarify this before commenting. This certainly appears to be what you are saying. But I may be misunderstanding your point, so please explain what you mean by your last sentence.

Perhaps we have not learned what sin is, and/or what the choice consists of.

The problem is to think that we are born in a neutral state and think we can choose to sin or not to sin on an arbitrary basis.

Since Adam every man is born in a sinful state. Every man is born with his spirit turned in towards his own being, thus forming ‘self’. That is, every one is born with the Lord on the outside, knocking.

Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

From self and the flesh comes no ability to perform that which is good; no matter how much I will to do it.

But man still has the ability to choose whether he wants to remain a sinner or not. Man can choose to turn away from his ‘self’ and make the Lord his source. Now, the point is: that this is not an arbitrary action or choice; just as much as God is not arbitrary in whom he saves.

Before one will choose to be saved, or turn from ‘self’ to God, he needs to realize that he needs to be saved, and that ‘self’ is no good for source.

The amount of sins one commits is beside the point.

Rom 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Though we all come into this world in unbelief (our spirit turned to our own being); this results in an unmerciful state; a sinful state. God offers us all mercy and grace so that we may turn from ‘self’ to him and receive mercy and grace and thus be saved from unbelief.

It is unfortunate that you insist, Tom, on mischaracterizing Article 18. The main point of the Article is to tell the world what the reformed Church believed regarding the biblical concept of free will. The Article is part of their confession of faith. The reference to Pelagianism is only to help clarify the scriptural position of the Lutherans on free will by way of contrasting it to one of the common errors of the day. We could examine what error Pelagianism taught, and that would probably help somewhat, but that's not essential for the discussion because the main position on free will is set out in the main part of the article that precedes the reference to Pelagianism.

True John, we can choose to yeild to the Holy Spirit. True, everyone who is lost is lost by their own choice in not yeilding to the Holy Spirit. But can we be saved by choosing to be any more than we can choose not to sin? God has consigned all to sin. Out of those consigned to sin, He has chosen the elect. The elect are saved because God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. This seems cruel to the unaided mind. The doctine though is a consolation to the open-hearted. It places the primary responsibility for our salvation with the unchanging love of God rather than with the fickle human will.

Mark, I'm curious. How did you happen to become an SDA? Where did you learn the ideas on election that you have?

As I mentioned earlier, before becoming an Adventist, I was a Calvinist. In becoming an Adventist, I "unlearned" the Calvinist ideas, and learned that Adventists are Arminianists. Anyone who attends Adventist churches knows the emphasis preached like this: "Yes, Christ died for everybody, but it does you know good unless you accept it." Surely you've heard this. This is typical Adventism.

So it's interesting to meet an Adventist who has obviously come at this from a different perspective.

Tom, I was brought up an Adventist, the son of an Adventist pastor. My ideas come from my study of the Bible. I've never studied Calvanism.

I agree with this statement you quoted:

"Yes, Christ died for everybody, but it does you no good unless you accept it."

The early church taught this and the early reformers like Luther and Zwingli believed and taught it too. That statement is scriptural as well as the quotes that John posted above that say God shows mercy to all. They don't overrule other scripture though. That is the reason for the success of the reformers - they allowed the scripture to speak and although they retained some error, they were better than most generations at putting aside their own opinions and allowed the Spirit to speak through scripture.

The difference between what I believe and what most Adventists believe is that I accept the scriptural statements regarding the election even though on the surface they seem to conflict with our view of free will. The reason for that is that our view of free will in Adventism is not completely in harmony with scripture, although if we accepted all of the statements of Ellen White on the topic we would have a better balance. So I refer you to the more scripturally accurate statement found in Article 18. I could requote Ellen White as well.

My summary of scripture is that both the human will and the will of God are essential ingredients in salvation, but the primary ingredient is the will of God, the secondary is the human will. We err if we change that order or place the human will on par with the will of God.

Regarding God consigning us all to sin, this means that although God tempts no one, the God has ordained this order of things so that He can have mercy on all. It is something of a mystery, but I don't know how successful I will be at persuading you of that.