Bible Study Free will

[GodsGrace]

Oh they were commanded alright, and properly warned of bad things. But it really doesn't matter that they knew what God said, if they don't believe God. The beguiling however, was obviously beyond their comprehension, since they did eat.

These are some thoughts I have. I believe the Kingdom of Darkness is built on one single subtle lie that has been unknowingly accepted as true, and it resides in the subconscious. Other lies have been built upon this accepted premise, which makes it hard to see.

And this is my sincere concern regarding freewill doctrine. Many people still don't see the lie Satan said. Ask someone, "What is the mistake that Adam and Eve made?" The answer given is predominantly, "They disobeyed God and ate of the forbidden fruit."... Notice that few will ever say, "They believed God was a lying tyrant who subjugates those under him by keeping them ignorant through fear of death". Nobody even answers to any effect that acknowledges, that Adam and Eve were deceived into believing something that was not true, other than Paul. 2 Corinthians 11:3.

Now I find it true, that there is no true repentance if you're not actually sorry for what you did. Moreover, if you don't even know what you did wrong, you can't be sorry for it. Of course it is easy to now say that we are sorry for disobeying God, since we were removed from paradise, and now experience hardship and death. But it's kind of like saying it's wrong to steal because you go to jail. So if I were to put my self in God's shoes, I feel that I would much rather hear someone say, "We are sorry we ever doubted your Loving Faithful Character, wherein you have always looked out for us without fail"... That, to me, would be a true repentance from the original sin.

Freewill doctrine instead focuses on our taking responsibility for our actions, based on the assertion that we choose freely. It sounds nice, but it draws attention away from the real issue of being blinded through deception. For one thing, it seems that no one considers that we cannot choose correctly when we are deceived. Consquently in that mindset, any attempt to excuse Adam and Eve as deceived, is seen as an attempt to escape responsibility for one's sinful actions. I can see how the hypocritical self righteous spirit is based on this. And I believe this mirrors what Paul called righteousness through the works of the law.

So it is that we can excuse and accuse. Freewill doctrine tends to frown on excusing peoples actions on any pretense of being deceived and weak in the flesh. Freewill doesn't approve of blaming Satan, seeing that as an excuse and giving power to Satan, who is ironically the accuser. Freewill belief is so adamant of a closed mind, that it concludes that we are just robots if we can't choose freely to sin or not. The lie of darkness is it pretends to be the light. I must stop now. This post is already too long and I could go on and on. Matthew 7:1.

Blessings back to you!

This is all very interesting.

How do you feel about this?
If we DON'T have free will, doesn't that mean that God is responsible for original sin and every other sin we commit since we cannot really choose NOT to sin?

Do you suppose God planned from the beginning of time to send His only Son to die for us because He felt guilty for ever having created us in the first place?

And, what IS satan's lie? It can't be as simple as that we'd be like God or that we surely wouldn't die, can it? You must be headed someplace else with this...

W

 

[childeye]

According to Scripture, only Eve was deceived, but that was a welcome deception, since she responded according to the three lusts.

Actually, the scripture doesn't teach that she had responded to, what you have called, the three lusts. The scripture teaches that she was beguiled by the serpent. Well God would know. Here is what scripture reports is what God had to say about it. Genesis 3:13-14.
13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
We can see that God does indeed hold the serpent responsible. He even says that the serpent did it and God doesn't lie. They all in turn receive consequences for their actions, but the devil becomes lower than any beasts of the field.

The question that never gets asked is what business did Eve have in dialoguing with the Devil? Why did she not run to Adam immediately and tell him "You deal with this Serpent, since he is casting doubt on what God has said"?

The lie was subtle and the serpent was cunning, so I don't believe Eve was his equal. There is a false premise that this lie relies upon so as to be able to entice, the thought of becoming like God. In fact we were made in God's image, we already were like God in character.

.And Adam simply disobeyed.

This is what God had to say about it. "Because you hearkened to the woman". He listened to the woman, that is what God said that Adam did wrong, which to me implies that Adam had better judgment, but no self confidence. I believe He was meek. So that's what God said Adam had done wrong. God doesn't say, you knew what you were doing and deliberately chose to disobey me.

To deny the free will of these two, and thus deny the free will of humanity, simply will not wash.

You only say that because you don't understand what I'm talking about. You think I'm saying people have no will. To me freewill simply means voluntary. I don't deny we have wills that desire and choose. I just know that we make choices according to what we believe to be true. Knowledge, ignorance, wisdom, environmental upbringing. Many factors all have something to say about the choices we make. I'm against freewill doctrine. Where since freewill means voluntary, it's used to cast blame for sinful actions as if they are deliberated in full knowledge by healthy minds and souls. In point of fact, Jesus indicates that there is spiritual blindness and that sin is akin to a sickness. Matthew 9:12. That is what Jesus says about it. But freewill doctrine just shrugs it off. Also, there is another lesson here. For Jesus is responding to the Pharisees, so it is for their correction. They looked judgmentally at the sinners as if the sinners could help themselves to being obedient by simply choosing to do so. They believe in freewill doctrine and view it as personal responsibility. I'm not saying we don't have responsibility for our actions. I'm saying that responsibility is not the product of a voluntary decision. Love is actually what makes people act responsibly.

Please note these Scriptures carefully.

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food [the lust of the flesh], and that it was pleasant to the eyes [the lust of the eyes], and a tree to be desired to make one wise [the pride of life], she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (Gen 3:6).

Respectfully, you are reading these things into the scripture. I think "looks good for food and pleasant to the eyes" would be anyone's honest conclusion upon examination. I believe that it is a tree that one would desire to eat from so as to have wisdom. Isn't wisdom something we all desire? Let's not be hypocritical. I know I can't volunteer to see bad food that's unpleasant to the eyes when it actually looks good. I also cannot volunteer to desire to not be wise, or rather I don't desire to be a fool and I can't choose to.

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (1 Tim 2:14).

Adam listened to the woman and she was deceived, not Adam. So the man should be in charge. It's not meant to mean that Adam knew what he was doing eating the fruit deliberately and disobeying God directly, while the woman was deceived into it, so the man should be in charge.

Adam was fully aware of the truth and the consequences, but chose to disobey regardless.

You are simply saying Adam knew God was right, the serpent was a liar, and he wanted to die.

The whole point of making human beings free moral agents is for people to freely turn to God and to Christ upon hearing the Gospel.

The Gospel is only received in good soil according to scripture. It takes faith to believe. Simply having a brain that decides is irrelevant.

The Holy Spirit convicts and convinces, but it is the sinner who must repent and believe the Gospel. If all would repent, all would be saved. Many do not repent because they prefer darkness over light (Jn 3:19-21).

I agree with this. But the reason some Love the darkness isn't because people can volunteer. Freewill doctrine doesn't even consider why people do what they do. It just concludes that they do it, because they can.

 

[Malachi]

Actually, the scripture doesn't teach that she had responded to, what you have called, the three lusts.

That's a laugh. Shall I quote that verse again, or are you going to deny what is plainly stated in Scripture? We need to abandon our pet theories when confronted with the Word of God.
And when the woman saw (1) that the tree was good for food, and (2) that it was pleasant to the eyes, and (3) a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

 

[childeye]

This is all very interesting.

How do you feel about this?
If we DON'T have free will, doesn't that mean that God is responsible for original sin and every other sin we commit since we cannot really choose NOT to sin?

This is a good question which shows a good thinker. First understand that freewill means a voluntary choice. I'm sure we all know from being alive and sentient, that we are constantly making choices, and we are able to voluntarily choose to do something. That is not in question. So having freewill is not relevant as to why we would volunteer one way or the other morally.

But the short answer to your question is no, God is not to blame. You will then say that if God is not to blame, then man is to blame. No, no one is to blame. I believe in a no blame scenario. The issue is vanity, a circumstantial event where what is good is taken for granted in un-thankfulness. Vanity works two ways, things are imagined to be worse than they are and things are imagined to be better than they are. This happens both at the same time, like when one imagines the grass is greener somewhere else.

Which brings forth a paradox that we must deal with. For example, Adam was alone and God took a piece of him and made woman. And when Adam saw the woman, he adored the woman above everything God had made, because this was a piece of himself. But the woman who had never been alone, could not reciprocate with equal esteem for the man, because he was not a piece of her. She took him for granted. But when the woman has a child, the child will be a piece of her, and she will love the child above all other things. And the child will likewise take the mother for granted take her for granted and the woman will have come full circle and understand the Man. It's no one's fault that this unfair scenario exists. It is a no blame scenario that allows Satan to play both ends against the middle in accusation.

The same scenario exists between God and all of His creation. We all take God and His attributes in us for granted in the unthankfulness of vanity. We do not esteem God properly and are therefore un thankful.

Do you suppose God planned from the beginning of time to send His only Son to die for us because He felt guilty for ever having created us in the first place?

No. I believe God created man a corruptible soul as a plan to destroy vanity in both angels and men through a temporal flesh existence. Or in other words to end the unfair cycle, so that we may see Him for Who He is, unto His Glory.

And, what IS satan's lie? It can't be as simple as that we'd be like God or that we surely wouldn't die, can it? You must be headed someplace else with this...

There's much more to the lie. How deep do you wish to go? This post is already long. Here's a short bit about the lie. The lie presents a false premise that is difficult to detect. We already were like God in Character. The lie however presents God as a matter of status rather than a character of Spirit. The lie creates a false image of god. The false image changes the core of our reasoning by making God appear to be a tyrant boss, when He is in fact the greatest Servant of all. Every other lie is built upon this lie. These lies produce sinful desires. All lies serve to subvert and defy one single Truth, to Love God with all your heart mind and soul. Every facet of the lie, is defeated by the revelation of the Christ, the True Image of God sent by God. The dismantling of the lie, is the renewing of the mind by the Spirit of Truth.

 

[childeye]

That's a laugh. Shall I quote that verse again, or are you going to deny what is plainly stated in Scripture? We need to abandon our pet theories when confronted with the Word of God.
And when the woman saw (1) that the tree was good for food, and (2) that it was pleasant to the eyes, and (3) a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

I want to be your friend. Please don't take it personally. I already addressed this. I didn't deny she experienced these things. I simply pointed out that these aren't three lusts. These are simply what she observed about the tree. If Satan's voice is beautiful, that doesn't make it a lust to hear it. It's simply pleasant upon the ear.

 

[reba]

Not necessarily directed at the last poster... ADMIN
For a long while 'in forum land ' posters in the Bible Study section have been keeping it cool very little contention .. seems in the last couple days it is creeping in.. Heavy moderating splinters threads... Drop the idea , my theology is the only right one... Share Scripture learn from each other ... God Word will not return to Him void of what He sent it to do..

 

[GodsGrace]

That's a laugh. Shall I quote that verse again, or are you going to deny what is plainly stated in Scripture? We need to abandon our pet theories when confronted with the Word of God.
And when the woman saw (1) that the tree was good for food, and (2) that it was pleasant to the eyes, and (3) a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

The above is for Childeye and is correct.
When teaching about Adam and Eve the above is always used to show HOW Eve was tempted and how, even today, sin if found tempting. These three could indeed become "lust".
Food could become lust: A Bad Desire or A Strong Desire. Something that is pleasing to the eye - the "pleasing" could become lust. Being wise could be lust. Lust becomes a part of something, a bad part, when satan tempts. In the verses you use, satan was already in the picture and tempting.

W

 

[GodsGrace]

This is a good question which shows a good thinker. First understand that freewill means a voluntary choice. I'm sure we all know from being alive and sentient, that we are constantly making choices, and we are able to voluntarily choose to do something. That is not in question. So having freewill is not relevant as to why we would volunteer one way or the other morally.

But the short answer to your question is no, God is not to blame. You will then say that if God is not to blame, then man is to blame. No, no one is to blame. I believe in a no blame scenario. The issue is vanity, a circumstantial event where what is good is taken for granted in un-thankfulness. Vanity works two ways, things are imagined to be worse than they are and things are imagined to be better than they are. This happens both at the same time, like when one imagines the grass is greener somewhere else.

Which brings forth a paradox that we must deal with. For example, Adam was alone and God took a piece of him and made woman. And when Adam saw the woman, he adored the woman above everything God had made, because this was a piece of himself. But the woman who had never been alone, could not reciprocate with equal esteem for the man, because he was not a piece of her. She took him for granted. But when the woman has a child, the child will be a piece of her, and she will love the child above all other things. And the child will likewise take the mother for granted take her for granted and the woman will have come full circle and understand the Man. It's no one's fault that this unfair scenario exists. It is a no blame scenario that allows Satan to play both ends against the middle in accusation.

The same scenario exists between God and all of His creation. We all take God and His attributes in us for granted in the unthankfulness of vanity. We do not esteem God properly and are therefore un thankful.

No. I believe God created man a corruptible soul as a plan to destroy vanity in both angels and men through a temporal flesh existence. Or in other words to end the unfair cycle, so that we may see Him for Who He is, unto His Glory.

There's much more to the lie. How deep do you wish to go? This post is already long. Here's a short bit about the lie. The lie presents a false premise that is difficult to detect. We already were like God in Character. The lie however presents God as a matter of status rather than a character of Spirit. The lie creates a false image of god. The false image changes the core of our reasoning by making God appear to be a tyrant boss, when He is in fact the greatest Servant of all. Every other lie is built upon this lie. These lies produce sinful desires. All lies serve to subvert and defy one single Truth, to Love God with all your heart mind and soul. Every facet of the lie, is defeated by the revelation of the Christ, the True Image of God sent by God. The dismantling of the lie, is the renewing of the mind by the Spirit of Truth.

Received Childeye. God is not a tyrant.
Will be gone till this afternoon. Time difference here.
Have another question for your consideration.
Lata...

 

[JCitoL]

Oh they were commanded alright, and properly warned of bad things. But it really doesn't matter that they knew what God said, if they don't believe God. The beguiling however, was obviously beyond their comprehension, since they did eat.

1 John 2:3-4 "we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.",

1 John 3:24 "he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.",

1 john 5:2-3 "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous."

therefore, adam and eve were righteous, because they kept the Commandment of God, for when satan told the woman: "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?", she said to it: "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."(Genesis 3:1-3), which indicates that even she was righteous, because she was also aware of and kept His Commandment, so the primary cause of the fall was not in the humans, because they were faultless

These are some thoughts I have. I believe the Kingdom of Darkness is built on one single subtle lie that has been unknowingly accepted as true, and it resides in the subconscious. Other lies have been built upon this accepted premise, which makes it hard to see.

And this is my sincere concern regarding freewill doctrine. Many people still don't see the lie Satan said. Ask someone, "What is the mistake that Adam and Eve made?" The answer given is predominantly, "They disobeyed God and ate of the forbidden fruit."... Notice that few will ever say, "They believed God was a lying tyrant who subjugates those under him by keeping them ignorant through fear of death". Nobody even answers to any effect that acknowledges, that Adam and Eve were deceived into believing something that was not true, other than Paul. 2 Corinthians 11:3.

Now I find it true, that there is no true repentance if you're not actually sorry for what you did. Moreover, if you don't even know what you did wrong, you can't be sorry for it. Of course it is easy to now say that we are sorry for disobeying God, since we were removed from paradise, and now experience hardship and death. But it's kind of like saying it's wrong to steal because you go to jail. So if I were to put my self in God's shoes, I feel that I would much rather hear someone say, "We are sorry we ever doubted your Loving Faithful Character, wherein you have always looked out for us without fail"... That, to me, would be a true repentance from the original sin.

Freewill doctrine instead focuses on our taking responsibility for our actions, based on the assertion that we choose freely. It sounds nice, but it draws attention away from the real issue of being blinded through deception. For one thing, it seems that no one considers that we cannot choose correctly when we are deceived. Consquently in that mindset, any attempt to excuse Adam and Eve as deceived, is seen as an attempt to escape responsibility for one's sinful actions. I can see how the hypocritical self righteous spirit is based on this. And I believe this mirrors what Paul called righteousness through the works of the law.

So it is that we can excuse and accuse. Freewill doctrine tends to frown on excusing peoples actions on any pretense of being deceived and weak in the flesh. Freewill doesn't approve of blaming Satan, seeing that as an excuse and giving power to Satan, who is ironically the accuser. Freewill belief is so adamant of a closed mind, that it concludes that we are just robots if we can't choose freely to sin or not. The lie of darkness is it pretends to be the light. I must stop now. This post is already too long and I could go on and on. Matthew 7:1.

Blessings back to you!

your thoughts on these things are right, but let's not forget the fact that God is a Spirit, and His Kingdom is Spiritual, satan is also a spirit, albeit of another kind, and its kingdom is inherently spiritual too, and exactly the spiritual is (in) the base/basis of all respective things in the universe, so if we are some kind of spiritual(religious), then we should be careful lest we commit spiritual unrighteousness/iniquity/lawlessness/wickedness, because, though the heart of the irreligious/non-occult man is passive, the heart of the spiritual(religious) man is active... (Romans 2:14-29, 3:19), for there is no evil that could affect all humans at once but only the spiritual iniquity/lawlessness/wickedness

Romans 5:12-14 "by one man(also: by the generation of the unrighteous spiritual workers/servants) sin(i.e. the devil and the system of (the) spiritual iniquity/lawlessness) entered into the world, and death(i.e. and the (spirit of) deterioration) by sin; and so death passed upon all men(i.e. and so the deterioration affected many humans), for that all have sinned(i.e. because many were seized/overtaken by the system of (the) spiritual iniquity/lawlessness, some of them as its servants, others as its victims): For until the law sin was in the world(i.e. because the "darkness" was in the universe even until the nascence of the human spirituality/religion): but sin is not imputed when there is no law(i.e. but there is no sin where there is no spiritual iniquity/lawlessness). Nevertheless death(i.e. the deterioration) reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression(i.e. even over people that had not committed spiritual iniquity/lawlessness)"

Blessings

 

[childeye]

The above is for Childeye and is correct.
When teaching about Adam and Eve the above is always used to show HOW Eve was tempted and how, even today, sin if found tempting. These three could indeed become "lust".
Food could become lust: A Bad Desire or A Strong Desire. Something that is pleasing to the eye - the "pleasing" could become lust. Being wise could be lust. Lust becomes a part of something, a bad part, when satan tempts. In the verses you use, satan was already in the picture and tempting.

The Serpent is the Tempter. It is true that those verses are used to show how Eve was tempted. I've heard that taught to me all of my life. The fact remains that the scriptures do not say that she was tempted by those things. She was beguiled and deceived into eating by prospect of becoming as gods. I feel that the lust aspect should be attributed there.

The scriptures are saying that in the woman's evaluation, the tree looked appealing and good to eat, as in not dangerous and able to make wise. Scripture also even agrees with her correct assessment, as they are indeed the God given attributes of the tree. "And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food". So this is why I do not feel that Eve's evaluation should be arbitrarily attributed to a lust driven desire as she examined the fruit and considered the serpents words. But, rather that it did seem as if God was keeping something good from them.

The scriptures do say definitively, that the serpent was the tempter introducing the temptation, through implying that God was keeping them from something good. I have to admit that. Therefore the temptation otherwise wouldn't have been there, regardless of how pleasant the tree had always looked, from the first day God put them in the garden, and every single day they were in the garden tending to it, right up until the serpent tempted.

 

[GodsGrace]

This is a good question which shows a good thinker. First understand that freewill means a voluntary choice. I'm sure we all know from being alive and sentient, that we are constantly making choices, and we are able to voluntarily choose to do something. That is not in question. So having freewill is not relevant as to why we would volunteer one way or the other morally.

Hi Childeye,
Wanted to devote some time to this. It's interesting. Most people devote surface attention to the Genesis story and it goes much deeper. You say having free will is not relevant to why we go one way or the other morally.
Let me just stop for an aside. I don't think it stops at "morally." I think every decision man makes includes this free will spoken about here and that every decision affects some outcome, which we can't know, either WHAT it is or WHY it is. I don't believe the answer is for us to grasp; we could only, each of us, have our own belief. IOW, I think even deciding which house to pick to live in will have something to do with some grand scheme. Isn't this why we say we should pray to know God's Will? But I find this difficult and am never sure I'm doing His will, except when it's glaringly obvious which choice is to be made. (to steal or not to steal...).
Getting back: Why would you say having free will is not relevant? It's not relevant to God that we choose to follow Him and not the evil one?

But the short answer to your question is no, God is not to blame. You will then say that if God is not to blame, then man is to blame. No, no one is to blame. I believe in a no blame scenario. The issue is vanity, a circumstantial event where what is good is taken for granted in un-thankfulness. Vanity works two ways, things are imagined to be worse than they are and things are imagined to be better than they are. This happens both at the same time, like when one imagines the grass is greener somewhere else.

I wish I knew better what you mean by "vanity." We make up words to express what we think spiritually and this h as always caused some confusion for me. A poster here speaks of the "contrariness". Took me much reading to understand what he meant. Are you using "vanity" in this way? Vanity is pride in something I either do or how I look. Or the "vanity" of beauty, in that it has no real value. But I can't apply it to your concept.

You say it works both ways: Things are imagined to be worse or to be better, than they really are. The grass is greener - how is that vanity? Isn't that envy? Is it not even important that I really understand this? It seems pivotal if I'm to understand you...

Which brings forth a paradox that we must deal with. For example, Adam was alone and God took a piece of him and made woman. And when Adam saw the woman, he adored the woman above everything God had made, because this was a piece of himself. But the woman who had never been alone, could not reciprocate with equal esteem for the man, because he was not a piece of her. She took him for granted. But when the woman has a child, the child will be a piece of her, and she will love the child above all other things. And the child will likewise take the mother for granted take her for granted and the woman will have come full circle and understand the Man. It's no one's fault that this unfair scenario exists. It is a no blame scenario that allows Satan to play both ends against the middle in accusation.

The same scenario exists between God and all of His creation. We all take God and His attributes in us for granted in the unthankfulness of vanity. We do not esteem God properly and are therefore un thankful.

This is great. Every now and then you come upon a gem - and your above is one. If I could write, a theme would be that no one really understands anyone (off topic) and thus no one is really appreciated. Thanks for the full circle idea. I'll share royalties with you! Okay. Satan does certainly use this situation, as he also uses many others.

And, yes, we certainly are unthankful to God for everything. Our very lives , our chance to get to heaven and continue life with Him. In fact, I understand "unthankful" much more than "vanity". it's much clearer what you mean. This reminds me of Mathew 18:21-35 Are we on the same page?

No. I believe God created man a corruptible soul as a plan to destroy vanity in both angels and men through a temporal flesh existence. Or in other words to end the unfair cycle, so that we may see Him for Who He is, unto His Glory.

Here we get into your actual understanding. Is the following right?: God created man and angels to destroy their unthankfulness and this cycle of not appreciating the other so that we may also appreciate God (and the other) for who He is and unto His glory.

I was on another thread regarding this glory idea. God made us for His glory. I know Jesus said at different times that what He was going to do was for God's glory. I don't quite grasp how it could be that God would CREATE us just for His glory. God needs glory? I mean, once we're here, we're to give Him glory. But you think we were created for this? or do you just mean that once we understand and appreciate WHO God IS, then we feel we want to give Him the glory?

But it can't be this simple. If we had never been created - the whole problem of unthankfulness (or vanity) and non-appreciation would never exist in the first place.

There's much more to the lie. How deep do you wish to go? This post is already long. Here's a short bit about the lie. The lie presents a false premise that is difficult to detect. We already were like God in Character. The lie however presents God as a matter of status rather than a character of Spirit. The lie creates a false image of god. The false image changes the core of our reasoning by making God appear to be a tyrant boss, when He is in fact the greatest Servant of all. Every other lie is built upon this lie. These lies produce sinful desires. All lies serve to subvert and defy one single Truth, to Love God with all your heart mind and soul. Every facet of the lie, is defeated by the revelation of the Christ, the True Image of God sent by God. The dismantling of the lie, is the renewing of the mind by the Spirit of Truth.

I agree with all of the above. God is not a tyrant boss but the most loving of servants. So, yes, you're going to have to get deeper into this and speak to "the lie."

The lie in Genesis is what the serpent spoke to Eve. You Shall Surely NOT Die.
When, in fact, we did.

Is your lie different?

Wondering

 

[GodsGrace]

The Serpent is the Tempter. It is true that those verses are used to show how Eve was tempted. I've heard that taught to me all of my life. The fact remains that the scriptures do not say that she was tempted by those things. She was beguiled and deceived into eating by prospect of becoming as gods. I feel that the lust aspect should be attributed there.

The scriptures are saying that in the woman's evaluation, the tree looked appealing and good to eat, as in not dangerous and able to make wise. Scripture also even agrees with her correct assessment, as they are indeed the God given attributes of the tree. "And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food". So this is why I do not feel that Eve's evaluation should be arbitrarily attributed to a lust driven desire as she examined the fruit and considered the serpents words. But, rather that it did seem as if God was keeping something good from them.

The scriptures do say definitively, that the serpent was the tempter introducing the temptation, through implying that God was keeping them from something good. I have to admit that. Therefore the temptation otherwise wouldn't have been there, regardless of how pleasant the tree had always looked, from the first day God put them in the garden, and every single day they were in the garden tending to it, right up until the serpent tempted.

Well, let's say that satan put the idea in her head. She was not tempted by those things until he brought them to her attention. It's like the Law. We didn't know about it till it was brought to our attention.

He USED the pleasantness of how the tree looked. The tree was already there. They were doing their gardening, as you say, and really didn't pay too much attention to the tree until satan brought her attention to it.
So now she LOOKED at the tree and saw it for the first time. She now deemed that it was good for food whereas before she paid no attention to it and just followed God's commandment not to eat of it. She saw that it was a delight for the eyes - many times sin enters through the eyes. We see something and observe that it SEEMS to be good and would want it. She wanted to be "wise". Was God keeping this from her, she might have thought.
And what could this "wise" be? Instead of trusting God, we start to wonder why we can't do certain things. Thus opening up the doorway to sin. One shouldn't dialogue with satan.

Seems to me that it was both the "wise" that Eve wanted - or what she perceived as that thing that God was keeping from her - something that she determined she wanted, and also, the fruit looked good and lust comes through the eyes. Lust is just something you want strongly. She wanted strongly what she saw to "be in" that fruit. It took both satan to suggest and Eve to want strongly.

W

 

[childeye]

Hi Childeye,
Wanted to devote some time to this. It's interesting. Most people devote surface attention to the Genesis story and it goes much deeper. You say having free will is not relevant to why we go one way or the other morally.
Let me just stop for an aside. I don't think it stops at "morally." I think every decision man makes includes this free will spoken about here and that every decision affects some outcome, which we can't know, either WHAT it is or WHY it is. I don't believe the answer is for us to grasp; we could only, each of us, have our own belief. IOW, I think even deciding which house to pick to live in will have something to do with some grand scheme. Isn't this why we say we should pray to know God's Will? But I find this difficult and am never sure I'm doing His will, except when it's glaringly obvious which choice is to be made. (to steal or not to steal...).
Getting back: Why would you say having free will is not relevant? It's not relevant to God that we choose to follow Him and not the evil one?

I am convinced that there must be a grande scheme., and also that what is the future for mankind, is already in the past in the eyes of God, Who created all things in time, declaring the end from the beginning. Otherwise I don't see how there could be prophecy.

The issue of freewill not being relevant in the moral purview is because of many reasons. The first and foremost is that righteousness is by grace through faith. In the grande scheme of things, there is a good reason why it is not by a free choice. The Gospel is meant to make the blind seeing and the seeing blind. It is to exalt the weak and lowly, while humbling the strong and haughty. It is to glorify God alone, wherein those forgiven much, love much, while those who are forgiven little, love little. John 9:39.

Another reason is because the term freewill is an obscure term. Consider this about the term freewill. You said above that "every decision man makes includes this freewill spoken about here". But what if I were to say this, "Every decision man makes requires a will to make it". Are not the sentiments exactly the same? We should analyze when and why the word free in front of will is even necessary.

The term freewill when used as an adjective, means voluntary. It appears in scripture twice, describing a freewill offering, or voluntary offering. But when freewill is used as a noun in the moral purview, it becomes a purely subjective equivocation between right and wrong. This introduces nuances to the term free along with their different implications. Freewill as a noun does not appear in scripture.

Most people see freewill as a fifty/fifty equal chance of opportunity to commit either way. But then once the will has committed in some capacity one way or the other, it no longer is viable as fifty/fifty, and that form of freewill no longer exists. This could describe Eve's predicament, who when being faced with a contrary claim, was not sure what to believe. The scripture describes a fifty/fifty will, as a will without conviction, undecided, or lukewarm, able to be tossed to and fro by the winds. The will that does commit partially, the scriptures describes what I believe is a verb, the term willing. The will that is strongly committed, I've seen described with adjectives such as willfully, or a term that implies strong desire, wantonly, stubbornness, steadfastness.

When it is pointed out that the fifty/fifty freewill is no longer fifty/fifty after committing one way or the other, the freewill thinker usually responds by asserting that the freewill can change it's mind at anytime. The scripture calls this double-mindedness. When this is pointed out to the freewill thinker, they usually resort to saying, that it's still the person making the choice, and not someone else making it for them. Now we have reverted back to the single term 'will'. They are simply saying every person has a will.

The danger of the term freewill is when it is applied to one's reasoning as a foundation for judgment in condemnation of actions. For since it is an equivocation, one can always appear to justify any accusation, by simply claiming that the person could have done this or that otherwise. But this is just an assertion based on the presence of an alternative option, without any consideration given to any limitations of the actual will being capable of choosing that other option. This then becomes a logical fallacy.

The fact that we choose is not relevant to God. After all, a choice is inevitable whether it be a lie being presented, or the Truth being presented. What is relevant is whether one can see and distinguish between what is true and what is a lie. And that requires having the ears to hear and eyes to see. Faith is something you have or you don't. Matthew 13:13. Mark 9:23. Romans 11:32.

 

[Malachi]

Bottom line -- the term *free will* is found in the King James Bible several times. That settles the issue handily. If God says there is such a thing, who is man to question it? Once again, we see the doctrines of men taking precedence over the Word of God.

 

[Malachi]

[QUOTE="wondering, post: 1173993, member: 8700" ] These three could indeed become "lust".[/quote]
"Lust" is unlawful desire. Eve's desires were unlawful and God held her accountable for that, but instead of confessing her sin, she blamed the serpent.
And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. (Genesis 3:13).
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. (James 1:13-15).
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. (1 John 2:16).

 

[childeye]

Bottom line -- the term *free will* is found in the King James Bible several times. That settles the issue handily. If God says there is such a thing, who is man to question it? Once again, we see the doctrines of men taking precedence over the Word of God.

The term freewill is used in the King James. But it is an adjective that means voluntary, as in a freewill offering, or voluntary offering. I do not contest that the word exists in scripture. I contest how it is applied in reasoning as an absolute. Faith is a necessary commodity to be able to believe. Without faith is the will free?

Consider that scripture identifies a will of the flesh also, and this will is properly understood to be a fixed desire that cannot choose otherwise. Consequently the carnal mind cannot serve God because it is fixated on the things of the flesh. Romans 8:7.

 

[smaller]

Consider that scripture identifies a will of the flesh also, and this will is properly understood to be a fixed desire that cannot choose otherwise. Consequently the carnal mind cannot serve God because it is fixated on the things of the flesh. Romans 8:7.

Paul was abundantly clear in Romans 7 that sin that dwells in the flesh has an adverse mind of it's own (Romans 7:7-13). Paul even described this internal activity as "NO LONGER I" twice in Romans 7:17-20.

Hebrews 10:22, not to mention common sense, also tells us we DO have an evil conscience. Making "good decisions" doesn't make the evil conscience go away either. Romans 7:21.

Is an evil conscience a "free" conscience? I think NOT! I might even say that because we can not even muster up the decency to be honest about it that the evil conscience makes liars out of most of us, particularly when we try vainly to justify it.

Jesus was abundantly clear that "evil" comes from within. It's not a maybe.

Matt. 5:28, Matt. 15:19-20 and Mark 7:21-23

The Promise of the Gospel is to "eventually" be rid of this internal fact.

 

[smaller]

Bottom line -- the term *free will* is found in the King James Bible several times. That settles the issue handily. If God says there is such a thing, who is man to question it? Once again, we see the doctrines of men taking precedence over the Word of God.

As it applies to O.T. law/ceremony/practice the term freewill offering is equal to "optional" not "mandatory."

 

[childeye]

Paul was abundantly clear in Romans 7 that sin that dwells in the flesh has an adverse mind of it's own (Romans 7:7-13). Paul even described this internal activity as "NO LONGER I" twice in Romans 7:17-20.

Hebrews 10:22, not to mention common sense, also tells us we DO have an evil conscience. Making "good decisions" doesn't make the evil conscience go away either. Romans 7:21.

Is an evil conscience a "free" conscience? I think NOT! I might even say that because we can not even muster up the decency to be honest about it that the evil conscience makes liars out of most of us, particularly when we try vainly to justify it.

Jesus was abundantly clear that "evil" comes from within. It's not a maybe.

Matt. 5:28, Matt. 15:19-20 and Mark 7:21-23

The Promise of the Gospel is to "eventually" be rid of this internal fact.

Nothing is abundantly clear to the blind, no matter how many times they read Romans 7. The semantics of the words have to be deciphered through the presence of the Holy Spirit as do all things that pertain to God.

The defiled conscience is emblematic of this, wherein people will feel guilty, when they have done nothing wrong, and yet feel good about finding wrong in others. Generally speaking freewill implies that mankind has self-determination. It doesn't square with the words of Jesus who said that the blind following the blind all fall into a ditch. No one would deny it was the choice of a blind man, yet it would be absurd to suppose that Jesus is teaching that they had determined freely that they all wanted to fall in a ditch.

 

[smaller]

Nothing is abundantly clear to the blind, no matter how many times they read Romans 7. The semantics of the words have to be deciphered through the presence of the Holy Spirit as do all things that pertain to God.

The defiled conscience is emblematic of this, wherein people will feel guilty, when they have done nothing wrong, and yet feel good about finding wrong in others. Generally speaking freewill implies that mankind has self-determination. It doesn't square with the words of Jesus who said that the blind following the blind all fall into a ditch. No one would deny it was the choice of a blind man, yet it would be absurd to suppose that Jesus is teaching that they had determined freely that they all wanted to fall in a ditch.

Scriptures clearly show that the unbelievers are blinded in mind and under the power of Darkness, of Satan. 2 Cor. 4:4, Acts 26:18.

The fact that not even believers who posture freewill can see this is a testimony to at least a LITTLE of that same blindness in themselves.

Does that show they, the unbelievers, have freewill? I might not think so, at all. To me this clearly shows the exact opposite.

How entire bodies of "freewill" theologians can miss these quite glaring facts are a testimony of the opposite sorts of their own claims. They can't even see the obvious.