1John 3:9 What does it mean?

[FreeGrace]

Perhaps the point of observations will continue to be missed. There are "other wills" that operate "in man" that are not the person's will.

Yes, I've read your posts. But I have no idea what is meant by this, or how it plays into what man chooses. Could you clarify?

Evil thoughts for example, are shown by Paul, with same transpiring within him in adverse manners by the observation of the law(s) against lust.

From whose will? Paul's own will. The will of his flesh.

Paul tracks this down for us, and pinpoints this to the operations of indwelling sin within his own flesh, Romans 7:7-13, that he termed "no longer I" twice in Romans 7:17-20. Paul concluded from this very very truthful exercise on his part, that he did in fact, as a fact, have "evil present with him" as a direct result of the presence of indwelling sin. Romans 7:21.

The chapter deals with the fact that believers have 2 warring natures; the natural nature of flesh also called the "sin nature" and the new nature which cannot sin.

There is nothing there that even smacks of "freewill."

It all smacks of free will. We choose to whom we "present ourselves" per Rom 6:16. There is nothing in Romans to suggest that we sin apart from our own choice.

IF you think you see freewill there, it doesn't exist.

The mere statement doesn't make it true.

The conscience of man assuredly deals with evil thoughts, and these, according to Jesus, are defiling and they defile us.

Which is why Paul said to "capture every thought for Christ" in 2 Cor 10:5 - We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ

Taking every thought captive isn't automatic. It's a choice we make to do it.

There is "no choice" to having these thoughts or not.

This statement is not true.

Anyone who thinks they have "chosen" themselves into sinlessness is simply not being truthful with themselves. 1 John 1:8. We can't even be "IN TRUTH" if we are not truthful and honest.

We're "in truth" when we are studying God's Word of Truth, and applying it to our lives. And that is a choice.

 

[FreeGrace]

Context dictates.

Unfortunately, most ignore that.

It makes sense in light of what the scriptures teach....
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9

If we confess our sin, He will forgive us....

But let's say, we don't ever confess our sins, because we have been taught that once we are saved, we are always saved, and all the sins we ever commit are already forgiven.

Again, "context dictates" as has been noted. What is the context for ch 1 of1 Jn? Fellowship. And fellowship is distinct from relationship. Discernment understands the difference. Our relationship with God is permanent, just as our physical relationship with our parents is permanent, and cannot be changed. The birth parent will ALWAYS be the birth parent. However, fellowship deals with the inter-relations between the two. As an example, there may be hatred or animosity between parent and child. Or harmony and cooperation.

When the Bible speaks of "abiding in Christ", or similar phrases, it is speaking of fellowship. And fellowship is broken when the child of God sins. To restore fellowship, the child must confess their sins. That's the point of ch 1.

We go through life, without being cleansed of the unrighteousness of our sins, because we were taught that all of our sins we will ever commit are automatically forgiven forever and ever, because once we are saved we are always saved.

One needs to understand forensic forgiveness, which is based on faith in Christ, and occurs when one is saved initially, and fellowship forgiveness, which is designed to cleanse us from our on-going sins committed after we are saved.

Jesus spoke of this without using the words "fellowship" or even confession in John 13, when He was washing the disciples' feet, including Judas. Recall that Peter didn't want Jesus to wash his feet and Jesus told him that he could have "no part with Me" if He didn't wash Peter's feet. Then Peter, still misunderstanding what was going on, then said, "ok, then wash my hands and head as well". Basically, give me a complete bath. What did Jesus say? You are already clean, except not all of you (meaning that Judas wasn't clean, meaning saved). In that culture, foot washing wasn't a ceremony as it is today. It was quite functional and necessary when people entered houses and buildings. They walked where the animals walked and had dung on their feet. And it had to be removed or they would stink up the whole house.

Jesus was equating the daily function of walking on dirty roads with the daily "function" of sin that we all commit. And both need cleansing. For the believer, we need to "clean our feet" so we don't stink spiritually which breaks fellowship. That is the point of 1 Jn 1:9. No one gets saved by cofessing their sins. They get saved by believing in Jesus Christ per scores of verses, but Acts 16:31 comes to mind.

Then we form a habit of practicing sexual immorality and become a slave to this lifestyle…

Possible, but not advised.

Now this sin, which could have been forgiven and cleansed has become a lifestyle of bondage because...
each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death. James 1:14-15

Sin that is never dealt with and cleansed, can become full grown and eventually bring forth death.

Confess your sins, one to another that you may be healed.
James 5:16

Nope. All that sin does is break fellowship, which the Bible describes as "death" meaning loss of fellowship. I know you will disagree, but that's the truth.

There are NO verses that teach that one's sins will keep them out of heaven or lose their salvation. This has been covered thoroughly. One either believes the Bible or not.

The concept of loss of salvation is SO IMPORTANT that if true, the Bible would have made it very clear with very specific statements, but which are NOT found in Scripture.

otoh, there are very clear and specific verses on eternal security, none of which has been exegeted by your camp to prove they don't mean what they clearly do say.

 

[smaller]

Yes, I've read your posts. But I have no idea what is meant by this, or how it plays into what man chooses. Could you clarify?

I only respond to counter the false claims that freewillers make, by elimination of the Will of God "in man" and the 'adverse will of the devil' IN man. I really don't expect them to hear, because, you see, there ARE other wills that are being played out "in man" that are not of the man, but do operate within same.

Romans 11:8 Mark 4:15

 

[childeye]

"so as to establish…"??? Where did this come from? Rom 6:16 makes clear the CHOICES believers have. We either present ourselves as slaves to sin, or to righteousness. And Paul obviously stressed the importance and need to present ourselves as slaves to righteousness, not sin.

At least we can agree that Paul is stressing the need to present ourselves as slaves to righteousness. Our differences are going to be over what free will means. To me it means a voluntary decision, and not a choice made out of necessity, or through divine power or fate. That's why I don't see any 'voluntary' choice here, even because it is a choice of necessity. Christ's Love is God's divine Power. There is no righteous action performed without it. You can say we can choose to not submit, but of course that is doing the will of Satan and is a decision prompted by the powers of darkness. That's why I say it is a spiritual matter and not a free will matter. Ephesians 6:12.

All believers have been given eternal life. That's not the issue. Again, see above for explanation.

I know, you are saying that there is a choice, as in two options to choose from. I don't contest that fact, since of course good and evil exist. But free will is not established through the existence of these two powers. A free will is established through being able to choose/decide, without any power behind the choice/decision.

Everyone is free to have their own opinion, but a command can be either followed, or rejected. That is a choice.

Fine, we can obey or rebel, but that's different than saying a commandment is a choice being given. It is an ultimatum. Again I'm not disputing that a choice will happen, I'm looking at the spirit behind the choice and saying the choice to rebel is Satanic in nature and is faithless, while the choice to obey is Godly and faithful.

I don't follow the comment about being devoured by a sword, though. What is the point here? It doesn't seem to fit any context of the discussion. Please clarify.

If I am told by God to do what He says or I will be devoured by a sword, that is an ultimatum. If I am to believe God, that I will perish if I do not trust in Him about this, then the decision to follow is compelled out of necessity and therefore is not voluntarily made. I'm trying to establish that spirit and faith or absence of faith, are the powers and means behind the choice, not free will.

Optional?? So, every command from God is ALWAYS followed exactly? That would mean that believers, who are commanded to live holy and blameless lives no longer sin. Does that fit your lifestyle?

That's a good question. The way I see it, yes I do love others as I would want to be loved but only through Christ. Christ is a spiritual power manifesting within me the desire that fulfills God's commands. I don't mentally deliberate the commandments of whether or not I should keep or break God's commandments, every time I have any moral interaction with a fellow human being. It is the spirit residing in me that ultimately will determine how I act. For example, I'm driving down the road and someone cuts me off, and I begin to get angry. But then the Holy Spirit reminds me that this person may not be elderly and no as good a driver as myself, and they may have really needed to get over. After all, haven't I done the same thing before? Hence, the Holy Spirit dissuades my anger and shows me what a jerk I would be if it wasn't for Him. I am left humbled by such incidents.

What is meant by "viable"? Doable? Or just another option that is legitimate? That's the problem with using "option". Sounds like just another legal or legitimate choice, when it ISN'T legal or legitimate.

Viable in this case means that the option to disobey God is a profitable and reliable course of action.

The reality of life is that believers, children of God, actually CAN rebel against Him. They are not supposed to, but they CAN. It's a lousy "option", or choice. But it's still a choice.

Yes I get that. To rebel is a choice, to obey is a choice, so what? Are these choices freely made, or are they compelled or restrained by higher powers? That's the question. Scripture says that these powers exist. Acts 26:18. I already gave you my example testimony of how the Holy Spirit restrains my anger, and provides me with humility. I can't honestly say I could have said to the Holy Spirit, "No, I'm not going to stop being angry at this person who cut me off". Why? Because He convicts me in that I have done the same thing to others, and therefore unless I excuse this person, I am a hypocrite. Because of Him I can see I would be a jerk, whereas otherwise, I would have thought I was being righteous. So I don't get this rebellion part. I like being corrected and spared from being a jerk. I don't agree that it's in me to be able to rebel after seeing the Truth, while admitting that without being corrected by the Truth, I would be in rebellion even though I thought I was walking uprightly.

We are commanded to imitate Christ (Gal 4:19). That's NOT puppetry in any sense.

Christ is a living Spirit through which we are reborn with God's nature. If Christ lives in me then he is moving me. I've given my testimony. I am corrected actively by the Holy Spirit when interacting with others.

That's from the KJV, which is from much older manuscripts, dated to the 10th Century. The better manuscripts, which have been found AFTER the KJV was written, dating back to the 2nd Century, do not have the phrase following "in Christ Jesus". That was inserted AFTER the original writing.

Is there a body of Christ or not? Romans 12:5.

What do these verses prove? What's the point here?

The point is to show that the power to choose to believe in the Christ, comes from God. You had requested scriptures that support this point in your earlier post.

 

[Douglas Summers]

(Post removed, A&T forum guidelines: "Subsequent responses either opposing or adding additional information should include references to specific supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation of the member's understanding of how that scripture applies." Obadiah.)

 

[FreeGrace]

I only respond to counter the false claims that freewillers make, by elimination of the Will of God "in man" and the 'adverse will of the devil' IN man.

Have I made that claim? God's will is clear from Scripture. Every believer should be aware of that. But I don't know why one would think that the devil's adverse will is IN man. He certainly deceives man. And his will is for man to reject God's will. But how is it IN man?

I really don't expect them to hear, because, you see, there ARE other wills that are being played out "in man" that are not of the man, but do operate within same.
Romans 11:8 Mark 4:15

The issue as I see it is how man responds to God's Word. Man is held accountable for his own will and how he chooses. Not the devil's. When man's will "consents and obeys" God's will, he will be blessed as Isa 1:19 says.

But, if man's will "refuses and rebels" against God's will, he will be punished as Isa 1:20 says.

But in the end, man's will is free to accept God's will or the devil's will. We decide which will to follow. Does that make sense?

 

[JLB]

Douglas Summers said

If you believe that a person who is in Christ, a believer, a Christian, can live a lifestyle of immorality, following after the desires of the flesh, such as what Paul mentioned in Galatians 5:19-21, then please say why, with the scriptures that support your theory.

9 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,
20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies,
21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5:19-21

These verse's tell me Paul is addressing Christian people, in the Church at Galatia.

Paul made it clear, that he does not judge or oversee or pastor, those who are unbelievers, who are of this world and outside the Church, which is to say, outside of God's Kingdom.


Paul says -

9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people.
10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.
11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner--not even to eat with such a person.
12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?
13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore "put away from yourselves the evil person." 1 Corinthians 5:9-13

For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside?

That's should be clear to anyone who is sincerely seeking the truth.

When Paul warns people about the consequences of sexual immorality, or idolatry, or any other such thing, he is warning Christians, those who are believers and are in Christ, that they could end up not inheriting the kingdom of God.

This warning is not to people who are of this world and outside of Christ, since they are already outside of Christ and under the judgement of God's wrath if they don't repent and obey the Gospel.

Paul goes on in the next Chapter 6, with the warning to the Christians, believers in Christ, about these very consequences...

8 No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren!
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:8-10

Peter says it this way -

20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning.
21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. 2 Peter 2:20-21

For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it,...

Again, this warning is to people who have embraced the way of righteousness through acknowledging Jesus as their Lord and Savior, Christians, believers, those who are in Christ.


Do you understand what the phrase will not inherit the kingdom of God means?


JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

At least we can agree that Paul is stressing the need to present ourselves as slaves to righteousness.

Our differences are going to be over what free will means. To me it means a voluntary decision, and not a choice made out of necessity, or through divine power or fate.

I see any voluntary decision as a choice. When making a decision, a choice is being made, imho.

That's why I don't see any 'voluntary' choice here, even because it is a choice of necessity.

I don't see that being of "necessity" is relevant. If I'm being attacked by a wild animal or criminal and I have several weapons with which to decide to use (choose), it's still a voluntary choice of which one I grab.

Christ's Love is God's divine Power. There is no righteous action performed without it. You can say we can choose to not submit, but of course that is doing the will of Satan and is a decision prompted by the powers of darkness.

Oh, no. I strongly disagree. If we choose to not submit, that decision is prompted by ourselves. Satan cannot make such a decision for us. We are held accountable for what we choose to do.

Please explain Isa 1:18-20. It is so clear to me, but your view seems to be unaware of the passage.

That's why I say it is a spiritual matter and not a free will matter. Ephesians 6:12.

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places."

My definition of free will is only that man is free to make choices or decisions. And they ARE a spiritual matter when related to spiritual issues. Like who to present ourselves to, per Rom 6:16. That is a choice and it most certainly is a spiritual matter.

I know, you are saying that there is a choice, as in two options to choose from. I don't contest that fact, since of course good and evil exist. But free will is not established through the existence of these two powers. A free will is established through being able to choose/decide, without any power behind the choice/decision.

Where does that definition come from? The Bible is clear that God has given humans freedom in choosing. I don't know why there should be any "power behind the choice". Free will isn't about power anyway. It's about choice. Nothing more. Since our definitions of free will are different, maybe there isn't much point in further discussion.

Most people who are anti-free will seem to describe the position of free will as having some power to do things. But that's not reality. Think of anything that you've chosen today. Where is the power behind that choice? There is none. You simply made a decision for one thing above another or others.

I will say this: there can be a power IN whatever is chosen. For example, from Rom 6:16, if we choose to present ourselves as slaves of obedience to sin, we are under the power of sin. But there was no power involved in that decision. otoh, if we present ourselves as slaves to righteousness, we are under the power of God Himself in the Holy Spirit who indwells us.

So, there's no power in the choosing. There may be power in the choice. However, if I choose chocolate swirl ice cream instead of vanilla or strawberry, there is no power in any of the choices.

Fine, we can obey or rebel, but that's different than saying a commandment is a choice being given.

Oh, but I didn't say a commandment is a "choice being given". It IS a command. But is every command always followed? Of course not. That's what rebellion is; rejection of commands. iow, when we are commanded to do something, we have a choice; to "consent and obey" per Isa 1:19, or to "refuse and rebel" per Isa 1:20.

It is an ultimatum. Again I'm not disputing that a choice will happen, I'm looking at the spirit behind the choice and saying the choice to rebel is Satanic in nature and is faithless, while the choice to obey is Godly and faithful.

The point is that a choice is being made. The command may not be followed. And God was gracious enough to warn us of the consequences of such a decision.

If I am told by God to do what He says or I will be devoured by a sword, that is an ultimatum. If I am to believe God, that I will perish if I do not trust in Him about this, then the decision to follow is compelled out of necessity and therefore is not voluntarily made.

However, the entire OT reveals just how many times His people, the Jews, did just that; they rejected His commands and were dispersed, enslaved and killed, all having been promised by God. So even "necessity" doesn't mean that the command will be followed. If that were true, no believer would ever rebel or "love their first love".

I'm trying to establish that spirit and faith or absence of faith, are the powers and means behind the choice, not free will.

For me, what is behind the choice is simply freedom. I don't see "spirit and faith" as being a power or means behind the choice. The choice remains freely chosen. That is the only point of free will. Nothing more. Do you disagree?
My post was too long for the server, so the second part will follow.

 

[FreeGrace]

Round 2:

That's a good question. The way I see it, yes I do love others as I would want to be loved but only through Christ. Christ is a spiritual power manifesting within me the desire that fulfills God's commands. I don't mentally deliberate the commandments of whether or not I should keep or break God's commandments, every time I have any moral interaction with a fellow human being. It is the spirit residing in me that ultimately will determine how I act. For example, I'm driving down the road and someone cuts me off, and I begin to get angry. But then the Holy Spirit reminds me that this person may not be elderly and no as good a driver as myself, and they may have really needed to get over. After all, haven't I done the same thing before? Hence, the Holy Spirit dissuades my anger and shows me what a jerk I would be if it wasn't for Him. I am left humbled by such incidents.

But not all believers are humbled. And when you did get angry, since that wasn't righteous anger, it was sin, and needed to be confessed. iow, when you were cut off, you chose to get angry. No one can make another person angry. They need our permission. iow, when we get angry, it is because we chose to. Many may not agree with this, but it is true. When I learned this principle, the very next time someond did something stupid on the road like cutting me off, instead of getting angry, I instead realized that no one got hurt, there was no damage thankfully, and I only had to admit that the other driver wasn't very good. The principle has saved me from a host of times where I could have but didn't get angry. Does that mean I've never gotten angry since learning that principle? Heavens no. I'm still a jerk at times and choose to get angry. Not that it's a "eeny meeny miney mo" kind of decision. But those incidents are far fewer than before I learned the principle.

Viable in this case means that the option to disobey God is a profitable and reliable course of action.

Well, of course that would never be true!

Yes I get that. To rebel is a choice, to obey is a choice, so what?

That's the point about free will. That's what free will is, and only that; a freely made choice. The claim "the devil made me do it" is false. He may have encouraged one to "do it", but he cannot make anyone do anything. Or he alone would be held accountable for all sins. But we are accountable for our sins. Because we have made them freely.

Are these choices freely made, or are they compelled or restrained by higher powers? That's the question.

I do not find any Scriptures that teach that any of man's decisions are made by outside powers or forces. We may be influenced, but they do not cause.

Scripture says that these powers exist. Acts 26:18. I already gave you my example testimony of how the Holy Spirit restrains my anger, and provides me with humility.

He does ONLY when you are "filled with the Spirit" per Eph 5:18 and "walking by means of the Spirit" per Gal 5:16. However, your anger rises unjustifiably WHEN you have grieved the Spirit per Eph 4:30 and quenched the Spirit per 1 Thess 5:19. Again, it's all about a free choice.

I can't honestly say I could have said to the Holy Spirit, "No, I'm not going to stop being angry at this person who cut me off". Why? Because He convicts me in that I have done the same thing to others, and therefore unless I excuse this person, I am a hypocrite. Because of Him I can see I would be a jerk, whereas otherwise, I would have thought I was being righteous.

Think about what it means to grieve the Spirit and quench the Spirit.

So I don't get this rebellion part. I like being corrected and spared from being a jerk. I don't agree that it's in me to be able to rebel after seeing the Truth, while admitting that without being corrected by the Truth, I would be in rebellion even though I thought I was walking uprightly.

If you agree that all believers continue to sin, then realize that each sin IS a rebellion in itself.

Christ is a living Spirit through which we are reborn with God's nature. If Christ lives in me then he is moving me. I've given my testimony. I am corrected actively by the Holy Spirit when interacting with others.

Just remember the fact of Paul's command to stop grieving and stop quenching the Holy Spirit. These things are what believers do. Each time they sin.

Is there a body of Christ or not? Romans 12:5.

Sure. Body and Bride of Christ.

The point is to show that the power to choose to believe in the Christ, comes from God. You had requested scriptures that support this point in your earlier post.

The point is that there is NO power in choosing to believe in Christ. The ability to believe comes from our conscience which is God given. Everyone has one per Rom 2:14,15 so no one has any excuse.

Seems people confuse power with ability. By giving mankind a conscience, they have the ability to know right from wrong. And be convicted by the Holy Spirit. But why are some not convicted? They resist the Holy Spirit per Acts 7:51.

When believers resist the Holy Spirit, He is grieved and quenched. We are to stop that.

 

[childeye]

Round 2:

But not all believers are humbled. And when you did get angry, since that wasn't righteous anger, it was sin, and needed to be confessed. iow, when you were cut off, you chose to get angry. No one can make another person angry. They need our permission. iow, when we get angry, it is because we chose to. Many may not agree with this, but it is true.

I am sure I didn't get angry because I chose to, it was a carnal reaction. I did confess my sin, even as I was shown I was acting carnally. I couldn't have received correction otherwise.

When I learned this principle, the very next time someond did something stupid on the road like cutting me off, instead of getting angry, I instead realized that no one got hurt, there was no damage thankfully, and I only had to admit that the other driver wasn't very good. The principle has saved me from a host of times where I could have but didn't get angry. Does that mean I've never gotten angry since learning that principle? Heavens no. I'm still a jerk at times and choose to get angry. Not that it's a "eeny meeny miney mo" kind of decision. But those incidents are far fewer than before I learned the principle.

I agree, since I too have learned to stay in the Spirit more often than not. But I can't help but think that God let's me be a jerk sometimes, so that I don't become vain.

That's the point about free will. That's what free will is, and only that; a freely made choice. The claim "the devil made me do it" is false. He may have encouraged one to "do it", but he cannot make anyone do anything. Or he alone would be held accountable for all sins. But we are accountable for our sins. Because we have made them freely.

Sorry Freegrace, but this is where I would take issue. Satan is the accuser not the excuser. He is also contrary as the tempter and the Father of sin. Such is his iniquity. I think Jesus shed his blood so that sins would be forgiven, not so that we would all be held accountable. I think after knowing Christ the devil becomes powerless, but apart from Christ, I think he deceives everyone. 2 Timothy 2:26.

I do not find any Scriptures that teach that any of man's decisions are made by outside powers or forces. We may be influenced, but they do not cause.

There are plenty of scriptures that show spiritual manipulation happens. The brain is where we decide, but that is completely and utterly affected by knowledge and ignorance of Truth. So manipulation happens from the inside, through thoughts that are not of godly origin, but come out of vanity. 2 Corinthians 2:5. So without Christ I could not be obedient since he is the Truth and the way.

He does ONLY when you are "filled with the Spirit" per Eph 5:18 and "walking by means of the Spirit" per Gal 5:16. However, your anger rises unjustifiably WHEN you have grieved the Spirit per Eph 4:30 and quenched the Spirit per 1 Thess 5:19. Again, it's all about a free choice.

I don't think I am ever not filled with the Holy Spirit. Like I said my anger is a carnal reaction. It's not deliberate.

Think about what it means to grieve the Spirit and quench the Spirit.

I think we grieve the Holy Spirit when we ignore Him.

If you agree that all believers continue to sin, then realize that each sin IS a rebellion in itself.

Sin is always contrary to God of course. But I believe sin is manifested apart from our cognizant will. That was the whole point of my example. Hence there is need for forbearance when judging others. I would like to think I have stricter standards for myself than I do for others. I don't know how much of that is pride.

Just remember the fact of Paul's command to stop grieving and stop quenching the Holy Spirit. These things are what believers do. Each time they sin.

I think you have to ignore His correction to grieve Him.

The point is that there is NO power in choosing to believe in Christ. The ability to believe comes from our conscience which is God given. Everyone has one per Rom 2:14,15 so no one has any excuse.

What about the cross being the power?1 Corinthians 1:18.

Seems people confuse power with ability. By giving mankind a conscience, they have the ability to know right from wrong. And be convicted by the Holy Spirit. But why are some not convicted? They resist the Holy Spirit per Acts 7:51.

There has to be a power that moves things either for good or evil. Mankind does know right from wrong in that we know how we want to be treated. It is hypocritical judgment that is the blindness of vanity. Still it is empathy that makes a man care at all how he treats others. And that is the power that makes a man able to Love others.

When believers resist the Holy Spirit, He is grieved and quenched. We are to stop that.

I agree He is grieved, but I would think quenching is more like losing your first Love.

 

[smaller]

Have I made that claim? God's will is clear from Scripture. Every believer should be aware of that. But I don't know why one would think that the devil's adverse will is IN man. He certainly deceives man. And his will is for man to reject God's will. But how is it IN man?

Mark 4:15 shows the entry of Satan into the hearts of man to sin, by STEALING the Word from within them. 2 Cor. 4:4 shows openly that the 'god of this world' BLINDS the minds of unbelievers. Paul was directed to 'turn' people from this power, the power of Satan. Acts 26:18. All of these and many others like it make the freewill posture a bad theology joke.

But, if man's will "refuses and rebels" against God's will, he will be punished as Isa 1:20 says.

It's not my practice to condemn captives. Nor was it Jesus' Way.

But in the end, man's will is free to accept God's will or the devil's will. We decide which will to follow. Does that make sense?

Were it only the man's will in play, you'd have a point. But that's not the case whatsoever. We do have an adversary to contend with that is upon every unbelievers MIND, blinding them. It is entirely and only God in Christ's choice to "free" them from the power of the adversary, in order for them to believe.

God Himself chose to spiritually blind an entire NATION of people over generations of time with the Jews, except for the "remnant" among them. Deut. 29:4, Romans 11:8 and many many others saying exactly the same thing.

God DOES have another agenda running on the earth, beneath what we see with our 'flesh eyes,' and it is the JUDGMENT of these parties:

Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

The freewill of man is NOT our enemy. There is in fact no such theological animal. They are carriers of spiritual wickedness, internally. An internal adversary that IS NOT THEM, who has captured them, just as we were under control, prior to belief. Spiritually DEAD because of the imposition of the "god of this world" who controlled our minds as his blinded pawns. Eph. 2:2

If we do not even know "who" we are engaging, how would we expect to tell anyone "the truth?" Think it just man, just their sole will? I'm sure Satan is quite amused by the posture.

 

[FreeGrace]

I am sure I didn't get angry because I chose to, it was a carnal reaction.

In fact, it was a choice to "get angry". An emotional choice. All "carnal reactions" are choices.

I did confess my sin, even as I was shown I was acting carnally. I couldn't have received correction otherwise.

iow, you recovered from the sin.

I agree, since I too have learned to stay in the Spirit more often than not. But I can't help but think that God let's me be a jerk sometimes, so that I don't become vain.

God lets all His children choose how they will live. However, there are a lot of warnings in Scripture about the discipline that is in store for those children who continually misbehave.

I said this:
"that's what free will is, and only that; a freely made choice. The claim "the devil made me do it" is false. He may have encouraged one to "do it", but he cannot make anyone do anything. Or he alone would be held accountable for all sins. But we are accountable for our sins. Because we have made them freely."

Sorry Freegrace, but this is where I would take issue. Satan is the accuser not the excuser. He is also contrary as the tempter and the Father of sin. Such is his iniquity. I think Jesus shed his blood so that sins would be forgiven, not so that we would all be held accountable. I think after knowing Christ the devil becomes powerless, but apart from Christ, I think he deceives everyone. 2 Timothy 2:26.

It seems my point was completely missed here. I will repeat; the devil cannot cause anyone to sin. He can only deceive and encourage. The sin comes from us. It's our choice and is why we are held accountable.

I don't understand the comment about Christ dying for sin "not so that we would all be held accountable". Where did that come from? He died to pay for our sin. We are forgiven when we believe in Him.

There are plenty of scriptures that show spiritual manipulation happens. The brain is where we decide, but that is completely and utterly affected by knowledge and ignorance of Truth.

It's still a choice, freely made. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

I don't think I am ever not filled with the Holy Spirit.

Then why would Paul command that believers be filled with the Spirit? Your comment insinuates that sinless perfection has been achieved. Is that your position? If so, Scripture refutes you clearly in 1 John 1. If not, how can one sin and still be filled (influenced) by the Spirit. That is a total contradiction.

Maybe there is confusion between being filled and being indwelt. Is that it? They aren't the same.

Like I said my anger is a carnal reaction. It's not deliberate.

All of our reactions are deliberate because God has given the power to control our reactions. We either choose to use His means of control, or we choose to go it alone, and sin.

I think we grieve the Holy Spirit when we ignore Him.

It's a bit deeper than that. Let's go with SIN. Any sin grieves the Holy Spirit. If it didn't grieve Him, He wouldn't be holy.

Sin is always contrary to God of course. But I believe sin is manifested apart from our cognizant will. That was the whole point of my example. Hence there is need for forbearance when judging others. I would like to think I have stricter standards for myself than I do for others. I don't know how much of that is pride.

I don't know where "sin is manifested apart from our cognizant will" comes from, but I don't understand what that means. The rest of the paragraph doesn't seem relevant to the issue of free choice.

I think you have to ignore His correction to grieve Him.

Which is SIN.

I said this:
"The point is that there is NO power in choosing to believe in Christ. The ability to believe comes from our conscience which is God given. Everyone has one per Rom 2:14,15 so no one has any excuse."

What about the cross being the power?1 Corinthians 1:18.

Of course there is power in the cross. But it seems my point was again completely missed. As I said previously, choosing has NO power. The power is ONLY in the choice. Does this make sense? iow, what we choose may have the power.

There has to be a power that moves things either for good or evil. Mankind does know right from wrong in that we know how we want to be treated.

It's way more than that. Of course there's power for good and evil. The Holy Spirit is our power source for good, and the devil is the power source for evil. And we choose which power source we're going to function from.

Because of our God-given conscience, mankind does know right from wrong, but it goes much farther than simply "how we want to be treated". It's how we are supposed to treat others.

I agree He is grieved, but I would think quenching is more like losing your first Love.

Basically, grieving or quenching the Holy Spirit is the same thing. And it is caused by our sin. Which is why we must confess our sins regularly, to either maintain or regain our fellowship with Him.

 

[FreeGrace]

Mark 4:15 shows the entry of Satan into the hearts of man to sin, by STEALING the Word from within them.

This refers to unbelievers, not believers.

2 Cor. 4:4 shows openly that the 'god of this world' BLINDS the minds of unbelievers. Paul was directed to 'turn' people from this power, the power of Satan. Acts 26:18. All of these and many others like it make the freewill posture a bad theology joke.

I do not follow your 'logic' at all. That the devil blinds the minds of unbelievers cannot a universal statement of fact. How do I know that? We have examples from Scripture that refute such a notion. The story of the Centurion Cornelius is just one. As a Gentile unbeliever, he worshiped God, yet he wasn't saved.

Also, Rom 1:19-20 SAYS that God has revealed Himself and His divine attributes to everyone through creation so that no one has any excuse for not being thankful to Him. That is universal; not that satan blinds the eyes of unbelievers.

I said this:
"But, if man's will "refuses and rebels" against God's will, he will be punished as Isa 1:20 says."

It's not my practice to condemn captives. Nor was it Jesus' Way.

I have no idea how this relates to my comment. Did you read Isa 1:19 or 20? What do captives have to do with this issue? Are you suggesting that because satan blinds the minds of unbelievers, they are "captives" and not under punishment? That would be unbiblical. John 3:36 is quite clear.

Were it only the man's will in play, you'd have a point. But that's not the case whatsoever. We do have an adversary to contend with that is upon every unbelievers MIND, blinding them. It is entirely and only God in Christ's choice to "free" them from the power of the adversary, in order for them to believe.

It appears your view is that "the devil made me do it" is viable, but it isn't. God holds US accountable for OUR actions. Yes, satan is there trying to get believers to sin. But so what? It's OUR CHOICE whether we give in to him or not.

God Himself chose to spiritually blind an entire NATION of people over generations of time with the Jews, except for the "remnant" among them. Deut. 29:4, Romans 11:8 and many many others saying exactly the same thing.

I strongly disagree with this. In fact, Isa 1:18-20 refutes your idea, along with Deut 11 and 30, 2 chapters I strongly recommend that every believer read.

The freewill of man is NOT our enemy. There is in fact no such theological animal.

I guess until one reads Deut 11 and 30 and Isa 1:18-20, there is no hope of understanding the freedom of choice that God has given mankind. Which is the ONLY REASON He holds us accountable for our actions. We are free to choose.

They are carriers of spiritual wickedness, internally. An internal adversary that IS NOT THEM, who has captured them, just as we were under control, prior to belief. Spiritually DEAD because of the imposition of the "god of this world" who controlled our minds as his blinded pawns. Eph. 2:2

I do not suscribe to the "devil made me do it" view.

If we do not even know "who" we are engaging, how would we expect to tell anyone "the truth?"

What believers are you aware of who are not aware of satan and his schemes?

 

[smaller]

This refers to unbelievers, not believers.

Well, at least you might see that because of that internal theft, that intrusion, that capitivity, that there really is "no freewill" involved. There is in fact 'another will' that is operational in such. Mark 4:15

And the fact that believers still sin, and that "our sin" is also directly connected to that same worker/working, the same observation comes to view. 1 John 3:8

I do not follow your 'logic' at all. That the devil blinds the minds of unbelievers cannot a universal statement of fact.

Yes, it is a 'universal fact.' Acts 26:18, 2 Cor. 4:4, Eph. 2:2 and many others point to the internal captivity of the unbelievers by a power and entity that is not them. We, ourselves, continue, daily, to TURN from that power and it's working.

How do I know that? We have examples from Scripture that refute such a notion. The story of the Centurion Cornelius is just one. As a Gentile unbeliever, he worshiped God, yet he wasn't saved.

How do you know he wasn't saved prior, moved within by God Himself?

Acts 10:
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

I can't discount or rule out God's Active Involvement within Cornelius. God directly intervened in that man's life, to show him that Jesus was His Savior. You think God could not send such an angel into any man's life? There is nothing "freewill" about a single thing of this Divine Intervention episode.

Also, Rom 1:19-20 SAYS that God has revealed Himself and His divine attributes to everyone through creation so that no one has any excuse for not being thankful to Him. That is universal; not that satan blinds the eyes of unbelievers.

Then we should eliminate from the scriptures, such statements of fact as 2 Cor. 4:4, Eph. 2:2, Mark 4:15 and all the other seed parables, 1 John 3:8 etc etc, that ALL show this to be a fact.

Yes, it is the "god of this world" that blinds the minds of the unbeliever. And that "god" is Satan. Acts 26:18 shows that Satan has people in his power, and "we," are directed to turn people from his power. To open their eyes to the facts of their internal slaveship.

I said this:
"But, if man's will "refuses and rebels" against God's will, he will be punished as Isa 1:20 says."

Who says that it is just "a man" singular that is involved with judgments of various sorts? That isn't even scripturally possible, if we see their internal captivity and their internal captor. This identical principle is laid out in great detail by Paul in Romans 9:17-24.

I have no idea how this relates to my comment. Did you read Isa 1:19 or 20? What do captives have to do with this issue? Are you suggesting that because satan blinds the minds of unbelievers, they are "captives" and not under punishment? That would be unbiblical. John 3:36 is quite clear.

Our sights of "man" are obviously different. I see the blinded unbeliever as a person, captured internally by an entity and power that is not them. Therefore there is MORE going on beneath the surface of these matters. This is a "scriptural sight" that only The Word can allow us to see. We will NOT see this using our own surface lenses.

It appears your view is that "the devil made me do it" is viable, but it isn't.

Never said that whatsoever. The devil does what the devil does. I don't 'blame and accuse' man for demonic captivity. I know they are captives, blinded by a power they do not perceive. They are his blinded captive pawns.

God holds US accountable for OUR actions. Yes, satan is there trying to get believers to sin. But so what? It's OUR CHOICE whether we give in to him or not.

No man is going to stop internal temptations from the tempter from transpiring. So, you can try to hold the tempter "accountable" or even blame man for temptations. The devil will laugh all the way to the end. The tempter is NOT accountable whatsoever NOR can "man" make the tempter "accountable."

I do not suscribe to the "devil made me do it" view.

And I would suggest that you conjured up that notion. The devil will do what the devil does. Trying to make man 'accountable' is pointless in the light of facts of "their" internal captivity. There is more than "just the man" to view.

What believers are you aware of who are not aware of satan and his schemes?

Apparently everyone who subscribes to the notion that the will of man is FREE of such demonic intrusions and captivity. That's about 1/2 or more of believers.

They don't even have a clue about spiritual captives, or their captor whatsoever.

John 8:34
Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

This is the exact captivity/servanthood that Jesus came to divide us all from. All sin is in fact DEMONIC. 1 John 3:8

 

[FreeGrace]

Well, at least you might see that because of that internal theft, that intrusion, that capitivity, that there really is "no freewill" involved.

Actually, free will is involved in every decision that we make, whether one sees it or not. If we are not making our own choices, then who is?

There is in fact 'another will' that is operational in such. Mark 4:15

“These are the ones who are beside the road where the word is sown; and when they hear, immediately Satan comes and takes away the word which has been sown in them.[/QUOTE]
If one reads the parable first, one realizes that the birds of the air (satan) come and eat the seed off the ground. This has no effect on believers regarding the gospel and is therefore of no relevance to the discussion of free will. The parable isn't teaching that satan will overcame anyone's will. Please compare with the other 3 accounts of the parable to get the full picture. For example, Luke 8:5 - “The sower went out to sow his seed; and as he sowed, some fell beside the road, and it was trampled under foot and the birds of the air ate it up." We know satan deceives the whole world, and this is one of the ways; he steals the gospel message from people.

And the fact that believers still sin, and that "our sin" is also directly connected to that same worker/working, the same observation comes to view.

I'm just not following this. Our sin is our sin, period. And when we sin, it's our choice, no one else's.

I'll ask again; does satan make anyone sin? No.

Yes, it is a 'universal fact.' Acts 26:18, 2 Cor. 4:4, Eph. 2:2 and many others point to the internal captivity of the unbelievers by a power and entity that is not them. We, ourselves, continue, daily, to TURN from that power and it's working.

But this isn't related to free will in any sense.

How do you know he wasn't saved prior, moved within by God Himself?

Because of what Peter said to the Jewish believers back in Jerusalem after he returned. Acts 11:14

I can't discount or rule out God's Active Involvement within Cornelius. God directly intervened in that man's life, to show him that Jesus was His Savior. You think God could not send such an angel into any man's life? There is nothing "freewill" about a single thing of this Divine Intervention episode.

Except that he had to accept the message. Where does Scripture indicate that his will wasn't involved? Who was doing the believing for him, if not himself?

I said this:
"Also, Rom 1:19-20 SAYS that God has revealed Himself and His divine attributes to everyone through creation so that no one has any excuse for not being thankful to Him. That is universal; not that satan blinds the eyes of unbelievers."

Then we should eliminate from the scriptures, such statements of fact as 2 Cor. 4:4, Eph. 2:2, Mark 4:15 and all the other seed parables, 1 John 3:8 etc etc, that ALL show this to be a fact.

I don't know what "fact" is being referred to here. And why should any verse be eliminated from Scripture? Please be way more specific in your claims. Such as taking just one of the verses cited and explain why any of my statements should result in removing that verse from the Bible. Fair enough?

Yes, it is the "god of this world" that blinds the minds of the unbeliever. And that "god" is Satan. Acts 26:18 shows that Satan has people in his power, and "we," are directed to turn people from his power. To open their eyes to the facts of their internal slaveship.

He does so through deception, not force. He CANNOT force anyone to do anything. Why would anyone think otherwise?

Who says that it is just "a man" singular that is involved with judgments of various sorts?

Just the Bible. Which is enough for me. I do wish you would read Isa 1:18-20. I'm waiting for your take on it.

That isn't even scripturally possible, if we see their internal captivity and their internal captor. This identical principle is laid out in great detail by Paul in Romans 9:17-24.

Please explain how it isn't even scipturally possible. Claims without explanations fall flat.

Our sights of "man" are obviously different. I see the blinded unbeliever as a person, captured internally by an entity and power that is not them.

Uh, like, the devil made me do it? I do not subscribe to that. Because Scripture does not teach that.

Never said that whatsoever. The devil does what the devil does. I don't 'blame and accuse' man for demonic captivity. I know they are captives, blinded by a power they do not perceive. They are his blinded captive pawns.

Seems to me this is only "talking out of both sides of your mouth". Either he does make people do things or he doesn't. What is your view?

While you don't blame man for demonic captivity, how were they led into captivity? The Bible tells us CLEARLY how that occurs.

Rom 6:16 - Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?

If this verse doesn't seem relevant to this discussion, please explain what this verse is saying, because I see that the issue here is to whom WE PRESENT OURSELVES, which is a CHOICE that we make.

Those involved in demonic activity allowed themselves to be. It was a choice. Maybe not conscious as in: oh, I want to be demon possessed. But we know that drug addiction easily leads to demon possession. The Greek word for "sorcery" is pharmekia, from which we get the word "pharmacy". Direct link to demon possession. And there are many other ways, like sexual immorality, as seen in the OT where pagan nations used orgies that even involved child sacrifice, all for "gettin' high". And being demon possessed.

The so-called "New Age" movement is all about demon possession, yet the majority of those involved have no idea what they have been involved in. It's a choice to get involved in this evil movement.

No man is going to stop internal temptations from the tempter from transpiring. So, you can try to hold the tempter "accountable" or even blame man for temptations. The devil will laugh all the way to the end. The tempter is NOT accountable whatsoever NOR can "man" make the tempter "accountable."

This completely ignores the Genesis account. Who did God hold accountable for Adam's sin? Gen 3 tells us:
14The LORD God said to theserpent, “Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life;15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.”

God began with the serpent (satan) with judgment.

So, yes, the "tempter" IS held accountable. The Bible SAID so.

And I would suggest that you conjured up that notion. The devil will do what the devil does. Trying to make man 'accountable' is pointless in the light of facts of "their" internal captivity. There is more than "just the man" to view.

Again, I do not subscribe to the "devil made me do it" theology.

Apparently everyone who subscribes to the notion that the will of man is FREE of such demonic intrusions and captivity. That's about 1/2 or more of believers.

Completely missing my point. Man is free to "present himself" to satan or to God. The choice of who he presents himself to is freely made. Can you show otherwise from Scripture?

John 8:34
Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

Yes, what Rom 6:16 says as well.

 

[childeye]

I don't see that being of "necessity" is relevant. If I'm being attacked by a wild animal or criminal and I have several weapons with which to decide to use (choose), it's still a voluntary choice of which one I grab.

Necessity is very relevant, since you wouldn't even be choosing a weapon if you weren't being forced to defend yourself in the first place. That is what is meant by a choice made out of necessity as opposed to voluntarily. Moreover, if you had a high powered rifle and a slingshot as your choices/options, you wouldn't choose/decide that a slingshot is best to defend yourself from say a massive grizzly bear. While defending your self from say mosquitoes, you would not choose a high powered rifle. All choices/decisions that are made, have a formula of reasoning behind why one choice/option is more favorable than another.

Oh, no. I strongly disagree. If we choose to not submit, that decision is prompted by ourselves. Satan cannot make such a decision for us. We are held accountable for what we choose to do.

You misunderstand. I didn't say Satan makes the decision for us. I'm saying that his children that he fathered do the same things as their father. John 8:44.

Please explain Isa 1:18-20. It is so clear to me, but your view seems to be unaware of the passage.

To me this passage is a call to reason with God. If you do, good things will come of it, if you don't, bad things will come of it.

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places."

My definition of free will is only that man is free to make choices or decisions. And they ARE a spiritual matter when related to spiritual issues. Like who to present ourselves to, per Rom 6:16. That is a choice and it most certainly is a spiritual matter.

Yes I know this is your view. But Romans 6:16 is saying that in the moral/immoral purview, we are going to be serving a master and doing their will. Free will to me, is to the ability to do my own will and be my own master. To be independent, self determined, autonomous.

Where does that definition come from? The Bible is clear that God has given humans freedom in choosing. I don't know why there should be any "power behind the choice". Free will isn't about power anyway. It's about choice. Nothing more. Since our definitions of free will are different, maybe there isn't much point in further discussion.

I use standard dictionary definitions. Here are some.
From Websters dictionary:
free will
noun
: the ability to choose how to act

: the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God.

From the Free dictionary by farlex:
free will
n.
1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
2. The power of making choices that are neither determined by natural causality nor predestined by fate or divine will.

From the Oxford dictionary:
Definition of free will in English:
noun
The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion.

Most people who are anti-free will seem to describe the position of free will as having some power to do things. But that's not reality. Think of anything that you've chosen today. Where is the power behind that choice? There is none. You simply made a decision for one thing above another or others.

I think it's how we would define words such as power. For example knowledge is said to be power. But what then is ignorance? Lack of power?

To me, it is clear we make choices, no big deal. The question is why do some people choose and delight to do do evil acts upon others, while other people would never choose to do evil acts upon others? On the contrary, they choose and delight to do acts of kindness. It's a behavioral question. Saying we make choices is not helpful, since we already know that. Because of this, free will becomes a circular reasoning when trying to get an answer. It goes like this: Why do people choose and delight to do evil? Because we can. Why do people choose and delight to do good? Because we can.

So we who are opposed to free will, have forsaken such reasoning since it teaches us nothing. To accept such an answer is actually a hindrance to understanding the knowledge of God. And so we have abandoned free will, and pursued our interests in finding out what are the 'powers' behind these contrary choices. Romans 6:16 does provide some answers, showing two opposing masters which are spiritual powers at work in our lives, one unto life and one unto death. One is the power of the Truth and one is the power of lies and deception.

I will say this: there can be a power IN whatever is chosen. For example, from Rom 6:16, if we choose to present ourselves as slaves of obedience to sin, we are under the power of sin. But there was no power involved in that decision. otoh, if we present ourselves as slaves to righteousness, we are under the power of God Himself in the Holy Spirit who indwells us.

So, there's no power in the choosing. There may be power in the choice. However, if I choose chocolate swirl ice cream instead of vanilla or strawberry, there is no power in any of the choices.

I think this is well said, and I understand you and all, but still there is some semantic confusion left to deal with. Particularly since choosing between flavors of ice cream is not the same as choosing whom you will serve in the form of your personal character.

So let's say I agree that there are two powers we are choosing between. But is there really no power emanating from them that would affect my decision? It's not like they don't have any defining qualities that would appeal to my senses. Sin appeals to my carnal senses, while God appeals to my moral senses. The deciding factor for me is, one is falsehood and will never deliver on it's promises, while the other is faithful and will always deliver on it's promises. So the choice is clear, and yet the power of that choice still comes from the object of my choice, wherein I put my hope because He is worthy, while the other is not. And what is inside of me that would even recognize a moral character over an immoral one to begin with? Is it not the same Spirit?

For me, what is behind the choice is simply freedom. I don't see "spirit and faith" as being a power or means behind the choice. The choice remains freely chosen. That is the only point of free will. Nothing more. Do you disagree?

The problem is semantics. What does freedom mean? Is it uncertainty? Uncommitted? Random? Blindness? Sight?
Romans 1:17King James Version (KJV)
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

 

[FreeGrace]

Necessity is very relevant, since you wouldn't even be choosing a weapon if you weren't being forced to defend yourself in the first place.

Having "necessity" doesn't change anything. It's still a free choice. Regardless of the conditions.

That is what is meant by a choice made out of necessity as opposed to voluntarily.

Some people are so pacifistic they voluntarily choose freely to NOT pick up a weapon, so your theory still breaks down.

Moreover, if you had a high powered rifle and a slingshot as your choices/options, you wouldn't choose/decide that a slingshot is best to defend yourself from say a massive grizzly bear. While defending your self from say mosquitoes, you would not choose a high powered rifle. All choices/decisions that are made, have a formula of reasoning behind why one choice/option is more favorable than another.

Matters not one bit.

You misunderstand. I didn't say Satan makes the decision for us. I'm saying that his children that he fathered do the same things as their father. John 8:44.

So, what's the point? Human beings choose freely. Yes or no?

To me this passage is a call to reason with God. If you do, good things will come of it, if you don't, bad things will come of it.

Do you see free choice in the w options?

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places."

How does this have any effect on free choice (free will)?

Yes I know this is your view. But Romans 6:16 is saying that in the moral/immoral purview, we are going to be serving a master and doing their will.

By a choice made freely. That is the point of Rom 6:16, and demonstrates man's free will.

Free will to me, is to the ability to do my own will and be my own master. To be independent, self determined, autonomous.

Actually, there has to be another option in order to have a choice to make. What is the "other side of the coin" here? To choose to do God's will and have Him as your Master.

btw, free will doesn't involve "ability" as has been stated in your definition of free will. The issue is choice, freely made. Not ability.

I use standard dictionary definitions. Here are some.
From Websters dictionary:
free will
noun
: the ability to choose how to act
: the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God.

From the Free dictionary by farlex:
free will
n.
1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
2. The power of making choices that are neither determined by natural causality nor predestined by fate or divine will.

From the Oxford dictionary:
Definition of free will in English:
noun
The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion.

The only problems here are when words like "power" and "ability" are used. If one has no "ability" to make a choice, they are pretty much brain dead, imho. And free will wouldn't be an issue anyhow.

I think it's how we would define words such as power. For example knowledge is said to be power. But what then is ignorance? Lack of power?

I don't care what ignorance is, except the opposite of knowledge. And power has nothing to do with free choice.

To me, it is clear we make choices, no big deal.

Right. It's no big deal. And that is all that free will is; making choices.

The question is why do some people choose and delight to do do evil acts upon others, while other people would never choose to do evil acts upon others?

A question many Calvinists seem fixated on. As if to imply that it is God behind the scenes pulling the strings, as it were.

On the contrary, they choose and delight to do acts of kindness. It's a behavioral question. Saying we make choices is not helpful, since we already know that.

What is meant by "not helpful". What else is the issue in free will?

Because of this, free will becomes a circular reasoning when trying to get an answer. It goes like this: Why do people choose and delight to do evil? Because we can. Why do people choose and delight to do good? Because we can.

So, what is your answer here?

So we who are opposed to free will, have forsaken such reasoning since it teaches us nothing. To accept such an answer is actually a hindrance to understanding the knowledge of God.

Well, then, let's just get down to the bottom line. If there is no free will (as I believe it to be), then just WHO is making all these choices that we see mankind making? Don't hold back; be honest. Because SOMEONE is clearly making choices, anyway one slices it.

And so we have abandoned free will, and pursued our interests in finding out what are the 'powers' behind these contrary choices.

So, in spite of the obvious choices involves in Rom 6:16 and Isa 1:18-20, your view still is there is no free will, huh? So, who's doing the choosing then?

Romans 6:16 does provide some answers, showing two opposing masters which are spiritual powers at work in our lives, one unto life and one unto death.

Except you're looking at it backwards or upside down. It's MAN who is choosing to whom to present himself as a slave of obedience. It's NOT the 2 spiritual powers that are doing the choosing. I think that's why your views are so mixed up and confused as to the issue of free will.

It's MAN that's free to choose to whom to present himself as a slave of obedience. That's the whole point.

One is the power of the Truth and one is the power of lies and deception.

Yet, neither of them are doing the "presenting" or choosing. You've missed the point of Paul completely, which explains the confusion in your view.

I think this is well said, and I understand you and all, but still there is some semantic confusion left to deal with. Particularly since choosing between flavors of ice cream is not the same as choosing whom you will serve in the form of your personal character.

The point is that a free choice is made in either scenario. How is there semantic confusion in that?

So let's say I agree that there are two powers we are choosing between. But is there really no power emanating from them that would affect my decision? It's not like they don't have any defining qualities that would appeal to my senses. Sin appeals to my carnal senses, while God appeals to my moral senses.

And there you have it!! To whom are you going to present yourself as a slave of obedience? Rom 6:16 Certainly both powers can exert some influence, as you've rightly noted. But the choice is yours as to whom you will present yourself as a slave of obedience.

The deciding factor for me is, one is falsehood and will never deliver on it's promises, while the other is faithful and will always deliver on it's promises.

That's nice and all, but every time you sin, as well as me or every other believer, we've succumbed to falsehood. Every time!

So the choice is clear, and yet the power of that choice still comes from the object of my choice, wherein I put my hope because He is worthy, while the other is not.

I disagree with your wording "the power of that choice". That sounds as if either of the spiritual powers is making the choice for you, which is NOT what Paul is saying in Rom 6:16. Yes, there is power in either choice, one is from God and the other is evil from satan. But neither of these powers is doing our choosing for us.

If either were doing that, we'd be reduced to puppets or robots. Are you ok with that idea??

And what is inside of me that would even recognize a moral character over an immoral one to begin with? Is it not the same Spirit?

What about WHEN the believer is grieving or quenching the Holy Spirit?

The problem is semantics. What does freedom mean? Is it uncertainty? Uncommitted? Random? Blindness? Sight?

I don't see any relevance to any of this other than the first word; freedom. The others have no issue with free will.

 

[childeye]

In fact, it was a choice to "get angry". An emotional choice. All "carnal reactions" are choices.

I think as long as there are options or alternatives to decide between, any action could be construed as a choice, but that is equivocating. What is an emotional choice? A choice made out of emotion or a choice between emotions?

iow, you recovered from the sin.

Either that, or God delivered me from my blindness.

God lets all His children choose how they will live. However, there are a lot of warnings in Scripture about the discipline that is in store for those children who continually misbehave.

I don't think God let's me choose how to live as per my testimony. And I'm very grateful for that. As pertains to chastising, you're referring to the fear of God which is one of the seven Spirits of God. I'm also grateful for that.

I said this:
"that's what free will is, and only that; a freely made choice. The claim "the devil made me do it" is false. He may have encouraged one to "do it", but he cannot make anyone do anything. Or he alone would be held accountable for all sins. But we are accountable for our sins. Because we have made them freely."

You know, I can appreciate what you're saying as far as wanting to take responsibility for our actions. But it would therefore be irresponsible to say the devil never deceives us.

It seems my point was completely missed here. I will repeat; the devil cannot cause anyone to sin. He can only deceive and encourage. The sin comes from us. It's our choice and is why we are held accountable.

I don't speak for God as to what He will hold us accountable for. He sees all, and will judge correctly. Meanwhile, I don't hold anyone accountable for their sin, I forgive all sins against me. Isn't it a contradiction to say the devil can deceive us and yet he can't cause anyone to sin? What sin is not a deception? Romans 7:11.

I don't understand the comment about Christ dying for sin "not so that we would all be held accountable". Where did that come from? He died to pay for our sin. We are forgiven when we believe in Him.

I'm trying to forgive people for their sin, pray for my enemies, turn the other cheek, bear my cross, etc...On account that those who sin are deceived into doing it. Free will is teaching that sin is deliberate and without any deception taking place.

It's still a choice, freely made. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Jesus is the advocate for mankind and Satan is the accuser. I am certain that ignorance of the law or knowledge of the law is irrelevant, since righteousness is by faith. Philippians 3:9. Even so, one can't be expected to do right, when what they think is right is actually wrong.

Maybe there is confusion between being filled and being indwelt. Is that it? They aren't the same.

Yes, thanks for that distinction.

All of our reactions are deliberate because God has given the power to control our reactions. We either choose to use His means of control, or we choose to go it alone, and sin.

Are you talking about believers or unbelievers?

Because of our God-given conscience, mankind does know right from wrong, but it goes much farther than simply "how we want to be treated". It's how we are supposed to treat others.

As far as I know the conscience factors in guilt. It is not the source of righteousness that Love is.

Basically, grieving or quenching the Holy Spirit is the same thing. And it is caused by our sin. Which is why we must confess our sins regularly, to either maintain or regain our fellowship with Him.

Yes, but isn't it better to be more interested in not sinning so as to not hurt others, rather than being afraid of the consequences for myself? Those are two different motivations.

 

[FreeGrace]

I think as long as there are options or alternatives to decide between, any action could be construed as a choice, but that is equivocating.

Why? A choice is a choice, obviously. Doesn't matter how many options are available.

What is an emotional choice? A choice made out of emotion or a choice between emotions?

I don't care what an "emotional choice" is, or even means. It is not relevant to what free will means.

I don't think God let's me choose how to live as per my testimony.

So, then, who's letting you choose how to live?

You know, I can appreciate what you're saying as far as wanting to take responsibility for our actions. But it would therefore be irresponsible to say the devil never deceives us.

And I've never said that. Of course he does and the Bible says he does. But being deceived can be thwarted by truth. We MUST avail ourselves to God's truth so we won't be deceived.

It is ignorant people who are deceived. And there are many believers who are too ignorant to know when to come in out of the rain. How many times did Paul use the phrase "I would not have you ignorant, brothers"?
Rom 1:13, 1 Cor 12:1 and 1 Thess 4:13.

I don't speak for God as to what He will hold us accountable for.

His Word does that.

Isn't it a contradiction to say the devil can deceive us and yet he can't cause anyone to sin?

No, there is no contradiction. Again, when one has God's truth, they won't be deceived. Those who have been deceived I ask: how much did you avail yourself to God's truth? I would suggest not much.

What sin is not a deception? Romans 7:11.

Sure sounds like a "the devil made me do it" defense.

I'm trying to forgive people for their sin, pray for my enemies, turn the other cheek, bear my cross, etc...On account that those who sin are deceived into doing it. Free will is teaching that sin is deliberate and without any deception taking place.

Where does one get that? I strongly believe that free will exists yet I strongly reject such teaching. Lots of sin is from ignorance; not knowing the "rules". But there is no excuse for ignorance. God has given us His Word and standards, so we still have no excuse.

Jesus is the advocate for mankind and Satan is the accuser. I am certain that ignorance of the law or knowledge of the law is irrelevant, since righteousness is by faith.

OH, Good Heavens NO!! Ignorance vs knowledge is HIGHLY relevant. How else would one know what God's rules are?

I said this:
"All of our reactions are deliberate because God has given the power to control our reactions. We either choose to use His means of control, or we choose to go it alone, and sin."

Are you talking about believers or unbelievers?

Believers.

I said this:
"Because of our God-given conscience, mankind does know right from wrong, but it goes much farther than simply "how we want to be treated". It's how we are supposed to treat others."

As far as I know the conscience factors in guilt. It is not the source of righteousness that Love is.

I'm not following this. Here is the passage on our God given conscience:
Rom 2:14,15 - 14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them

Yes, but isn't it better to be more interested in not sinning so as to not hurt others, rather than being afraid of the consequences for myself? Those are two different motivations.

Actually, God has given His children 2 different motivations for right behavior.

#1 blessings and reward in eternity far above anything we can imagine (Eph 3:20)
#2 severe divine discipline in time (our lifetime on earth) and loss of rewards in eternity

 

[Douglas Summers]

(Post removed, A&T forum guidelines: "Subsequent responses either opposing or adding additional information should include references to specific supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation of the member's understanding of how that scripture applies." Obadiah.)

Where is the post that was removed so I can see where I was in error ?

(The private message I sent you when this was done explains why it was done. Please read that and if you have any further questions please ask via the private message, not on the open forum. Obadiah)