FREE WILL

[Former Christian]

Ztheberean

“The deceptiveness of “free will†is found in its so-called simplicity: IF “we choose†to obey God, we can; and if “we decide†to rebel against God, we can do this too. The problem with this thinking is that in what “we can do†to please God, this is WORKS, and therefore NOT the grace of God at work, so that we could be willing to be doing under HIS workmanship, NOT “oursâ€.â€

The deceptiveness of “free will†is in its reality. The grace of God has nothing to do with what we do or choose to do. It has everything to do with what God has done through Jesus Christ and what we become in Christ.


“At this present time, there are but a FEW who are acting/teaching according to the election of grace (Rom 11:5). Note that this election process is of grace: Now if it is “by graceâ€, [God working] then it is no more “of works†[“our own work/choosingâ€]; Otherwise it is no more grace (11:6). Grace by works is because we have not obtained election by grace without works: Most herein found are blind to their contradiction of being “in works for grace†(11:5-7); And this is because God has given them a slumbering spirit (11:8); And this is so that they could be entrapped (11:9); And this is because they cannot hear what they need to hear, and see what they need to see (11:8). These believers have stumbled unto falling into darkness (11:11-10).â€

Who is Paul referring to?

“I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.†(Rom 11:1 KJV)


“Those who love this darkness of being into “Their Own Works†rather than the light of being in God working ARE IN CONDEMNATION (Jn 3:19 and 21). Whatever we are into which we have done for “Our†justification [“our will, way, words, or worksâ€], and we have fallen from grace/God’s will, way, words, and works (Gal 5:4). Unless we can acknowledge God’s will, we do not get repentance to be in this truth, so that we could be recovered from the devil’s will (2Tim 2:25-26). The faithful saying is (NOT by “our willâ€) but dead with Him, so that we could live with Him, and suffer with Him, so that we could reign with Him: Deny this, and He will deny you! (2:11-12). NOTE He cannot deny self (2:13); IT IS “WE†WHO ARE TO DENY “SELF†(Matt 16:24).â€

To believe we have free will isn’t doing whatever it is you said above. Maybe it is. Can’t tell since I don’t understand what you said above.


“Whosoever wills {is in “their own willâ€} loses the ability to come after Jesus unto losing their soul (16:25-24 and 26); Beware of this leavening doctrine of the Pharisees [free will] (16:11-12). IF you believe in God by “your choice/choosing†then you are trapped into “ignorantly†worshiping God in a place on this earth, in your body when God says He does NOT dwell in temples/churches that have been made with “men’s hands†nor is He worshiped with our hands (Acts 17:23-25).â€

“And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.†(Rev 22:16-17 KJV)


“God is commanding everyone everywhere to Repent of This IGNORANT worship (17:30); Because God is seeking true worshipers, He says we MUST worship Him in spirit, and in truth (Jn 4:24-23).â€

Repent? Agree with what?

“Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.†(Acts 17:29-31 KJV)


“Humanity has fallen from God’s will be done in spirit into man’s will be done in body! The fall is from being IN spirit (Is 31:3).â€

Contrast is between the human spirit and the human flesh. If the fall is from being in Spirit, what has this got to do with it?

“Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help; and stay on horses, and trust in chariots, because they are many; and in horsemen, because they are very strong; but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel, neither seek the LORD! Yet he also is wise, and will bring evil, and will not call back his words: but will arise against the house of the evildoers, and against the help of them that work iniquity. Now the Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses flesh, and not spirit. When the LORD shall stretch out his hand, both he that helpeth shall fall, and he that is holpen shall fall down, and they all shall fail together. For thus hath the LORD spoken unto me, Like as the lion and the young lion roaring on his prey, when a multitude of shepherds is called forth against him, he will not be afraid of their voice, nor abase himself for the noise of them: so shall the LORD of hosts come down to fight for munt Zion, and for the hill thereof. As birds flying, so will the LORD of hosts defend Jerusalem; defending also he will deliver it; and passing over he will preserve it.†(Isa 31:1-5 KJV)

FC

 

[ivdavid]

Former Christian,

FC - "You don’t appear to me to understand what I believe any better than when you started this conversation. I don't mean to sound rude. Just seems that way to me."
Your observations are what you've observed. Stating them can in no way be perceived as being rude - so don't worry about that at all. If you need any clarification, I'm ready to provide that where it concerns me.
Now, very obviously, I have not understood your belief framework in its entirety. And until I understand the entire belief framework, claiming to have understood a part of your belief framework is also incorrect - since each part of one's belief framework is inextricably connected to form the whole. But understanding one's belief framework is not a sequential process - where I finish understanding one part completely and then go on to another. It's a parallel process - because of the interconnections of one's beliefs to form the whole - and so, I may not have understood any part completely but could be progressing parallel in each part towards that point where everything 'falls into place'.

FC - "You keep asking me the same questions. That isn’t going to help you to understand what I believe."
I do accept that my seeking to understand your perspective could get quite frustrating to you - because you might wonder why what is so clear to you(your beliefs) is so hard for me to grasp. But that's expected, right? I am not privy to your first premises, your accompanying presuppositions etc. - I am given just the final belief that you write here. So, I ask on the same topic to gather all such accompanying beliefs too. In an attempt to see how your beliefs interconnect with each other, I ask on the same topic but seeking different aspects of it. If my discussing the same topic is what you've referred to as the same questions, then I hope you'd see now that there is much more than just the end belief that I'm seeking to know about.

The following is at least in keeping with this thread.

We've been discussing so many varied topics over quite some time now that it may seem as if we have digressed from the OP topic. So, let me simply think aloud on how I've approached this thread -

The topic of discussion is FREE WILL.
I hold certain beliefs that are interconnected together and that inferentially deny the freedom of our will - according to me. In a discussion, I acknowledge that others may have a different set of beliefs under which free will could be reconciled. I am interested in knowing how that reconciliation takes place - so I state my conflicts and see how others reconcile them. I am not a relativist - so I also believe that free will can either be reconciled or it cannot be reconciled. So, if two in a discussion believe opposite things about free will and both believe it as the truth - then either some beliefs involved are false or they are not referring to the same thing. I have usually seen the latter being the reason for differences. Anyway, these are my chief conflicts -

1. If free will is to be accepted, it puts us under the law of works for justification - but we are not under the law, rather under grace. This is why I discussed the law and justification.
A sub-conflict 1a) is that - free will makes 'our' faith also a work of the law. This is why I discussed what is meant by faith in Christ.
Another sub-conflict 1b) is in frustrating the grace of God. If righteousness is through the law of works, then Christ has become of no effect to us and we are fallen from grace.

2. It[free will] implies that man in the flesh has the ability to do what God considers good. This is why I discussed the righteousness of man in the flesh.
A sub-conflict 2a) is concerning whether man acts only in the flesh before regeneration.

3. It[free will] denies God's sovereignty in salvation. This is why I discussed God's election.


I have noticed 2 conflicts of yours, so far, against denying free will -
1. FC - "I believe that everyone from Adam on down is responsible for their own thinking and their own actions. And in order for that to be true, we must have the freedom to choose what to think and do. And to me that’s free will."
This is why I discussed the nature of sin.

2. FC - "Where the teaching of Christ says that God is not a respecter of persons, Calvinism says that God chooses some to be saved and the rest to be condemned, thus showing that God is indeed a respecter of persons."
This is related to my conflict 3 - which is why I discussed God's sovereign election.

Though not connected with the free will topic, your beliefs on interpretation coloured everything you said or heard - and this colouring seemed to raise some inconsistencies in your belief framework, which I sought clarification on.

I'd like to know if you can see the validity of my conflicts - or are they superfluous according to you.

See, if you think that my Conflict 1 does not arise at all because anyway man is not justified by the law and that free will has no binding relation with the law for it to imply justification by the law, then we differ on what we mean by the law - Which is what I sought clarification on in my last post w.r.t. Lev 18:5. Reply if you want to, else leave it - none of us are obligated to continue a discussion here.


And if you think that my Conflict 2 does not arise at all because man can also walk by his soul - then we differ on what we mean by the soul and the flesh. I asked what you meant by them - and you replied with a couple of questions - which I answered in my previous post. You seemed to have a line of discussion to pursue here, which if you do continue, would help me understand more on how you distinguish between the soul and flesh. But continue only if you want to.

Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
FC - "And in between is the Soul that you don’t as yet understand, by your own admission."
Yes, by my own admission I don't understand what you mean by the 'soul' - I have an understanding of the flesh and soul myself.
According to me, the soul is the consciousness of man which passively perceives in man, the desires and counsel to act, in order to actively work them out as action or imagination. The flesh is the causative man's nature which generates this desire and counsel in man - both of which are corrupt and against God.

As for Rom 7:25, I believe Paul is exhaustive in listing out the causative agents in him - the flesh and the Spirit. I can't see the soul being listed or even implied as a causative agent in generating desires and counsel in man. Which is why I'm requesting you to share how you see this. If Paul, by the Spirit serves the law of God, and by the flesh serves the law of sin - what law does he serve by the soul? Is it the law of God - then what need does he have for the Spirit if he can serve the law of God by the soul itself?


And if you resolve my Conflict 3 by stating that God sovereignly chose to give man free will and hence He is not required to sovereignly elect man into salvation, then we differ on how God elects. I asked you to share your beliefs on election - you asked me to read Rom 9 in the context of us having to have faith - and I proceeded with the discussion in my previous post. I thought we were making progress here in knowing what the other person believes and why - but if you feel this is getting to be repetitive or circular, then leave it.

Continued....

 

[ivdavid]

Former Christian,

FC - "I believe that our own human faith is NOT sufficient to Justify us. But it is sufficient to put us into the proper position where we can be Justified."
What we have understood by "faith" has a foundational effect on all our other beliefs too. So, what is this "human faith" - what are we to believe by ourselves?
To me, faith in Christ means to believe our entire justification and sanctification is wrought on the basis of the faith and works of Christ and Christ alone.
So obviously, your belief on human faith also playing a part in our justification is contradictory to me. We then are justified by the faith and works of Christ and our human faith - because it too plays a causative role in our justification. Which is why I ask what you mean by "faith in Christ".
So, to me, there is no such thing as "our human faith" - I don't believe man in the flesh can discern anything spiritual before being regenerated by grace. After regeneration, man is born of the Spirit and is gifted faith to believe in Christ - not in any way of himself. Thereby, it's all of grace and nil causative contribution from man himself. This way, no flesh can glory in His presence.

FC - "But human faith is insufficient to Justify anyone. That is why we must be Justified by the faith of another. Our human faith is only sufficient to put us into the position to be Justified. In Christ. And even then it must be augmented by baptism by the Spirit. There is no such thing as faith alone. That is made quite clear by James. Our human faith is expressed by works, such as water baptism, a desire for the milk of the word, etc. But none of these things Justifies us. It is the faith of Christ and the works of Christ that express that faith that Justifies. So, with the Protestant I say that we are Justified by Christ alone. But apart from the Protestant I also say that it is not by faith alone, whether our faith that puts us into Christ or the faith of Christ that Justifies."
A simple test to find out all the causes of our justification is to assume each factor absent one by one and to check if we could still be justified. And by factors, we are to list only those that have a causative effect - for example, if you consider our human works to be a natural consequence of our human faith , then our works need not be considered as a causative factor itself because the factor of 'our faith' would include "our works".
That way, if you consider man's faith and works as causative factors, shouldn't you rather say - our faith and works alone don't justify us? Then how can you say we are justified by Christ alone?


FC - "What I believe about the practice of Biblical interpretation is also very simple. No one who is in Christ should do it nor do they need to do it."
You have spoken much about how and why human interpretation is wrong and misleading - and I don't disagree with you there at all. But what is this human interpretation itself - and how do we discern whether we ourselves are interpreting or not.
I'm paraphrasing what interpretation is as stated by you - it is simply attempting to understand something of God by human thinking processes out of the exercise of the human mind as opposed to being taught by Christ Himself by His Spirit. If you agree with this paraphrased working definition, then I don't have a conflict here too.

Now, how does one discern if what he reads is a product of his own thinking or if it's a spiritual revelation from God? I think you're saying that when one does not interpret but simply accepts the plain understanding of the text, then he has not interpreted - but isn't that circular? What one considers plain understanding could have itself been defined/perceived that way by his human thinking, right?

To me, the basis of confirmation or denial of a belief is by Christ through His Word - the Scriptures. I know you believe that Scripture itself can be interpreted by humans in so many different ways - and I too agree that each part of Scripture can be interpreted. But I don't believe that any false interpretation of the Bible can be completely consistent. I don't believe the Bible could yield to multiple versions of consistent belief frameworks, because truth is very exclusive and a false system has to break down at one point at least. But can mere man discern the absolute truth - definitely not. Unless God reveals His truth, no man can attain unto it.

So, what is your basis of discerning whether a belief is a certain truth from God or a human interpretation?


Concerning the conflicts you've raised -
1. FC - "I believe that everyone from Adam on down is responsible for their own thinking and their own actions. And in order for that to be true, we must have the freedom to choose what to think and do. And to me that’s free will."
This is why I discussed the nature of sin.

Every single person is responsible for their own thinking and actions. But if sin can enslave us, and corrupt our thinking and actions - and given that God definitely is not the author of sin, - what now necessitates free will, in order for God to be just and righteous in commanding us to not sin?

Your conflict 2 is what I've already mentioned as my conflict 3.


FC - "I think that herein you have given your side of the matter of free will. That everyone is unregenerate unless you deem them to be regenerate. You consider Abel and Enoch regenerate."
Unless I deem them regenerate? No, not at all. I consider Abel and Enoch regenerate only because they are mentioned in the Bible as Old Testament saints who've put their faith in God.

FC - "Perhaps you should give your definition of regenerate."
I would consider Eze 36:25-27 to describe God's regenerating us.

And yes, I'd agree in part with the oxford definition. Man, a living soul, is born in the flesh. When he is regenerated, he, the soul, is reborn in the spirit. Throughout his first birth in the flesh, man is spiritually dead. By his rebirth in the spirit, he becomes spiritually alive.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

The only "free will" thing isn't true. "Burn or serve me" isn't free will no sane person would choose to burn.

 

[Former Christian]

Ivdavid

All Biblical quotes from the KJV.

1. “If free will is to be accepted, it puts us under the law of works for justificationâ€

If free will is not to be accepted, it puts us into the position of not having to work at all. Against Ephesians 2:10, among other references.


“2. It[free will] implies that man in the flesh has the ability to do what God considers good. This is why I discussed the righteousness of man in the flesh.
A sub-conflict 2a) is concerning whether man acts only in the flesh before regeneration.â€

Before regeneration, man acts by the soul and by the flesh. The degree of which is which being determined by the individual. That’s why humanity can have a Hitler and an Aristotle.


“3. It[free will] denies God's sovereignty in salvation. This is why I discussed God's election.â€

God’s sovereignty is what it is, and man’s free will is what it is.

“Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in loveâ€

We aren’t elected of ourselves. The election refers to Jesus Christ. We are only elected in Christ. We are only the elect by virtue of being in Christ. The foreknowledge of God is with reference to God knowing who will choose to accept the free gift of Justification in Christ. God’s foreknowledge in no way affects our choice and our choice in no way affects the foreknowledge of God. The only reason that isn’t seen is because of the practice of interpretation. It’s a practice that emphasizes something to the detriment of everything else. Sovereignty of God over free will or free will over the Sovereignty of God. In real life, neither affects the other and both are in full force.


“Yes, by my own admission I don't understand what you mean by the 'soul' - I have an understanding of the flesh and soul myself.â€

You before said that you didn’t understand the concept of soul. Now you say that you have an understanding of both the flesh and the soul. Preconceived ideas will destroy any chance that you will ever understand the nature of the soul. Try to keep an open mind. A mind closed by preconceived ideas can’t be renewed.


“If Paul, by the Spirit serves the law of God, and by the flesh serves the law of sin - what law does he serve by the soul? Is it the law of God - then what need does he have for the Spirit if he can serve the law of God by the soul itself?â€

What law must there be? Paul isn’t flesh nor mind nor spirit. These are aspects of functions within Paul. What is Paul? Paul is soul.


“So, what is this "human faith" - what are we to believe by ourselves?â€

Mt 9:29 Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you.

Ro 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

1Co 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

1Co 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

If you see a contradiction in the following two verses, you have yet to understand faith, our human faith. Nor do you understand the difference between our faith and the faith of Christ.

Ro 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Jas 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

And don’t be fooled by the idea that God gives us faith. Do you think that God gives us faith and then exercises it for us? It is we who must exercise the faith no matter what the source. Christianity emphasizes human faith as if it is what Justifies. But it is the faith of Christ that Justifies. Our faith only puts into the proper position to be Justified....in Christ. We believe into Christ, and the Spirit baptizes us into Christ. Some refer to that as baptismal regeneration, especially those who are agin it. I prefer to call it Divine regeneration (John 1:10-14, Rom 1-3, 1Cor 12:13, Tit 2:11-14, 3:3-7). To those who are in Christ, Christ is everything. We don’t choose to be Justified or Sanctified or wise. We are all of these things in Christ by virtue of Christ himself (1Cor 1:30). We can only choose to submit ourselves to Christ so that he can be these things to us. So that we can be these things in him. Eventually, he is our life (Gal 2:20). As we stay in one another, there is fruit (John 15:5).


“But what is this human interpretation itself - and how do we discern whether we ourselves are interpreting or not. â€

It has been my experience that those who practice interpretation in relation to human writings know that they are interpreting. But those who practice Biblical interpretation never know they are interpreting. For some reason there is blindness in relation to interpreting the written word of God. Before God revealed to you our condition and the remedy in Christ, you knew it not. So also with Biblical interpretation.


“But I don't believe that any false interpretation of the Bible can be completely consistent.â€

You have yet to understand Christianity. There are many self-consistent interpretations of the Bible in Christianity. Rarely is there a denominational doctrinal schema that is internally inconsistent. Christian forums exist because of that fact. The only way you can CLAIM to determine inconsistency of another doctrinal schema is when the interpretation is inconsistent with your own interpretation.

More to follow.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Ivdavid

“So, what is your basis of discerning whether a belief is a certain truth from God or a human interpretation?â€

What I believe is true is true to me. It matters not whether it’s true to anyone else. As does everyone.

I believe that Jesus Christ teaches those who walk by the Holy Spirit. How do I reconcile all of the beliefs that aren’t the same as my own? I don’t. We are to keep the unity of the Spirit, not the unity of our doctrines as is the way of Christianity. Consider that we’re intended to grow in our knowledge and understanding of truth. Transformation by the renewing of our minds through the Holy Spirit is a process.

What I stay away from are those like Savedbygrace57. They believe that their belief is true. There is nothing wrong with that. But they also believe that their own beliefs are objectively true for everyone. Thus they will say things like “Freewill religion is the man of sinâ€. Implying that all who believe any way but their way are equal to Satan or AntiChrist. I leave that kind to their own unity among themselves. They are practitioners of denominationalism contributing to the denominational nature of Christianity, the man-made religion.

I stay away from Christian denominations that believe that they are “The ONLY True Churchâ€, thus saying that all other Christian communities are at most Christian communities, but are not the Church, implying a community that has no real value. And all Christian denominations believe that by virtue of their continued distinctiveness.

I believe there is no such thing as a universal Church, which is the basis for the claim of being “The ONLY True Churchâ€. I believe in the New Testament portrayal of the ekklesia that are only local city expressions of that which is truly universal and timeless, the Body of Christ.

Since all denominations of Christianity are by nature denominational, I don’t participate in the Lord’s Table in any Christianity Church, because to do so is to participate in a division of the Body, rather than the unity of the Body. Gatherings in the name of a denomination or in a distinctive personal name has nothing at all to do with Jesus Christ or the Bible that declares him, though they use the name of Christ to denote themselves. Until those who are in Christ wake up, and it is something that they must do themselves (Rom 13:11-14, Rev 1-3), they will continue to be deceived into thinking that the denomination that they gather with, though it be a denomination, is the true expression of the Body of Christ.

I determine what is true by what Jesus teaches me. I follow no man, not even myself. I depend not on my own thinking, but upon God. I keep an open mind toward God rather than men so that I can be transformed by the renewing of my mind by God through the Spirit. I am a still a seeker in that respect. As we all should be. When we stop seeking, we stagnate into what you see all around you. People following denominations of Christianity. We begin to think that what we believe is the objective truth that all must believe. And we gather only with those who believe as we do into denominations. Instead of keeping the unity of the Spirit, we keep the unity of the denomination.


“FC - "Perhaps you should give your definition of regenerate."
I would consider Eze 36:25-27 to describe God's regenerating us.â€

“Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.†(KJV)

“And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.†(Ezek 36:28 KJV)

Try this one, you’ll be better off:

Tit 3:5 “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghostâ€

The Greek word translated “regeneration†refers to a return to the source. The washing refers to our Baptism into Christ (John 3:5, Rom 6:1-4). The renewing refers to the renewing of our mind through the Holy Spirit (Rom 12:2, 2 Cor 3:17-18). Both the regeneration and the renewing is through the same means. They are both interconnected (Eph 5:26). Not by the written word of God, Rather by Jesus Christ the Living Word of God.


“And yes, I'd agree in part with the oxford definition. Man, a living soul, is born in the flesh. When he is regenerated, he, the soul, is reborn in the spirit. Throughout his first birth in the flesh, man is spiritually dead. By his rebirth in the spirit, he becomes spiritually alive.â€

“And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.†(Gen 2:7 KJV)


“And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.†(Mt 10:28 KJV)

Unlike the common teaching among many in Protestantism, the soul of man didn’t die. If the soul of Adam and Eve had of died, we wouldn’t be here.


“I am not a relativist - so I also believe that free will can either be reconciled or it cannot be reconciled.â€

I’m a firm believer in the idea of relativism. In relation to certain things. In relation to different doctrines held by those who are in Christ, I’m a relativist. Thus my unusual belief that we are to keep the unity of the Spirit, not the unity of doctrine. In Christianity, that is ludicrous simply because to them the keeping the unity of the Spirit is the same thing as keeping the unity of doctrine. To them doctrine comes from the Spirit. And the only way to reconcile that understanding of doctrine with the variety of doctrinal beliefs in the various denominations, is to claim that distinctive doctrines of each denomination is to itself objectively true. That’s the basis for the practice of closed communion.

But the doctrine comes from Jesus Christ through the Spirit. And Jesus teaches us according to our ability to understand. It’s when we interpret what we have been taught, that we change what we’ve been taught and begin to take on denominational thinking.

It’s a good thing I’m a relativist. Because if I believed that Biblically interpreted doctrine is absolute, in the sense of objective truth, there could be no such thing as an open doctrinal discussion. There could only be proclamation of belief. True discussion is rare on a Christian forum. Rare in the “dialogues†between Christian denominations. Even this case, where you claim to desire to understand what I believe, you still have your own version of objective truth, just as I do. You still don’t understand my version, with good reason. You’ll never understand my version until your mind is sufficiently open to do so.

If you are like most Christians, what you believe today is what you will believe until you die, with very little, if any, variation. Your personal Tradition may be as developed as it’s going to get. You may learn how to convince some into agreeing with you, and you may learn better how to explain your beliefs; but the beliefs themselves will continue to be unchanged. For most, conversion is for a certain era in life. True personal renewal of the mind in the sense of changing one’s mind to accommodate truth revealed by Jesus Christ our teacher is very rare in Christianity. The only acceptable renewal of mind in Christianity is into the doctrines of a denomination. There are claims to the contrary. But there is always the difference between the claim and how the claim is executed.

What we each believe has had no influence for change in the other’s belief. However, I have the better case as to why what you have said has had no influence on my beliefs. Where you are now, I have already been. Being transformed by the renewal of our minds implies a forward progress, not regression into the past or standing still in an ever present present.

FC

 

[childeye]

This is taken from the freewill is the man of sin thread.

Upon reading what has been transpiring on this thread, I would like to address certain avenues of thought that confound the terms used. If freewill is defined as the ability to choose or deny God, it is contradictory in the outset and can only end in hypocrisy. The evidence shows that those who thought they were serving God persecuted those who also believe they are serving God. In the Old Testament God said, I put before you life or death, choose life. This presumes all men have the ability to not sin. I will call this freewill #1.

Yet in the New Testament, sin taking occasion of the Law rose up and deceived me, and through the Law slew me. This presumes we cannot not sin and are therefore in need of a savior.

Now it will be said again that men have the ability to choose or deny God presented through the Gospel of the Christ, the True Image of God. This presumes that all men have the ability to see and believe. I will call this freewill #2. Please note that freewill #1 denies freewill #2 and freewill #2 denies freewill #1.

It is not my intention to say we have no culpability but rather we are culpable according to how we hold others culpable. These two freewills persecute one another according to the same defined criteria for accountability, freewill. Yet they are both in hypocritical judgment and therefore self-condemning.

 

[ivdavid]

Former Christian,


ivdavid - "1. If free will is to be accepted, it puts us under the law of works for justificationâ€
FC - "If free will is not to be accepted, it puts us into the position of not having to work at all. Against Ephesians 2:10, among other references."
"Our not being able to" does not ever imply "our not having to". Are you with me on this?

Anyway, having a supporting reason for a belief does not necessarily make that belief true, right? There should also be no other belief contradicting that belief. In that sense, you have not mentioned anything over how you reconcile that freewill puts us under the law of works for justification. From that, I can only assume that this is not a conflicting belief for you, personally. Which is why I wanted to discuss what we each meant by "the law" in post#411.

FC - "God’s foreknowledge in no way affects our choice and our choice in no way affects the foreknowledge of God."
Fair enough - in cases of us sinning, yes. But you stop there - you limit it to just the foreknowledge of God and deny His own acts of predestining the future w.r.t. man's salvation and all the acts of good in him. Concerning salvation, you make God's actions a consequence of man's causative acts of good - ' God saves[acts], when man causatively has faith in Christ '.
This is what I believe - that you are able to have faith in God only because He is merciful towards you, having elected you as a child of promise. And this election takes place before you have done anything good or bad - so it's not based on you, rather it's based on God's will. This is why I wanted to discuss Rom 9 in post#412.


ivdavid - “If Paul, by the Spirit serves the law of God, and by the flesh serves the law of sin - what law does he serve by the soul? Is it the law of God - then what need does he have for the Spirit if he can serve the law of God by the soul itself?â€
FC - "What law must there be? Paul isn’t flesh nor mind nor spirit. These are aspects of functions within Paul. What is Paul? Paul is soul."
What law must there be? I am unable to imagine how you're seeing this. Tell me which point you'd disagree with -
W.r.t. God's governance of man,
1. The Law of God represents all of God's will.
2. The Law of sin represents everything against God's will.
3. All things are either of God's will or against God's will.
4. Since all things are either of God's will or against God's will, all things must necessarily fall under either the Law of God or the Law of sin.
5. Therefore "these aspects of functions within Paul" must fall under either the Law of God or the Law of sin.


FC - "There are many self-consistent interpretations of the Bible in Christianity. Rarely is there a denominational doctrinal schema that is internally inconsistent."
See, I'm not talking of internal inconsistencies at all. Many systems could be internally consistent. I'm talking of its consistency with the whole of Scripture - based on that system's own presuppositions and first premises. The only way they could remain internally consistent is by refraining from considering certain areas of Scripture.



FC - "A mind closed by preconceived ideas can’t be renewed."
The sinner's mind is closed by the god of this world and yet God is able to regenerate him - giving him a new heart and renewed spirit. With God, all things are possible. I think you'd agree to its possibility but would hold that God doesn't work this way. Isn't that then trusting the arm of the flesh to put yourself in a position to be saved?


FC - "But it is the faith of Christ that Justifies. Our faith only puts into the proper position to be Justified....in Christ."
Firstly, I think we differ on what we each mean by 'our human faith'. I'd refer to it as the belief in God that man holds, though not causatively. I think you hold it to be the causative believing in God by man.

So, according to you, in the sum-total of our salvation, we have been saved by the faith of Christ and by our own human (causative) faith - for without the one, salvation is not possible. Is this what you're saying? I believe that to have faith in Christ is to remove all man-caused acts?

What exactly,according to you, are we to believe, - to believe into Christ?

FC - "And don’t be fooled by the idea that God gives us faith."
I went back to your post#407 concerning John 6:63-65 - and I'd like you to qualify what you meant by God's revelation there. Because I'd say something like that - that no man can come to Christ unless God reveals His Son to him. From what you continued with, I think you'd differ on the nature of this revelation - that it was more a naturally perceived truth impressed upon all rather than an efficacious spiritually discerned truth impressed upon those God has mercy upon.
The context in John indicates that the reason some did not believe was because God had not given such faith to them then.

FC - "Do you think that God gives us faith and then exercises it for us?"
The fundamental difference between a believer and an unbeliever is that the believer believes in Christ. Lest the flesh has opportunity to glory in this unique distinction that serves as the basis for all further distinctions - God teaches us that this distinction too is not of ourselves but of God. Isn't it striving against God to again try and stake a claim in our own efforts over our believing in Christ?

Anyway, I believe that man's actions are directly consequent upon the desires and counsel in him. Now, when both the desire and the counsel is of God, I would consider God to have worked that action in man, though the implementation is being carried out in man. Cause and Effect - Caused by God, effected in man.

FC - "I determine what is true by what Jesus teaches me.... I depend not on my own thinking, but upon God."
And this is what I'm asking - how do you know which is your own thinking and which is what Jesus is teaching? How do you differentiate between them? Is it some unique feeling that swells up inside you that indicates it's of God? Is it a voice not of this world? Is it a Scriptural verse that is brought before your eyes in a way that sort of gives you an epiphany of what it actually means? Is it a combination of the above? All these do involve your mind, you see. So how do you differentiate between a working of your mind caused by God and caused by yourself?

Also, have you ever believed that you have had something taught to you by Jesus, but later found out by another teaching by Jesus, that your initial belief was mistaken and not of Jesus?

ivdavid - “I am not a relativist - so I also believe that free will can either be reconciled or it cannot be reconciled.â€
FC - "I’m a firm believer in the idea of relativism. In relation to certain things."
Are you mixing up relativism with tolerance?

[Oxford] relativism - the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.

I don't believe that - because all truths of God, all knowledge of God and all morality as defined by Him are describing His nature and that never changes - it is absolute. Hence knowledge, truth and morality are absolute as seen in God. So, God has either instituted freewill or He hasn't instituted freewill.

This does not mean that all have the same level of revelation from God at a time, nor that they have revelation in the same things at a time. Romans 14 describes comprehensively this scenario - that there may be believers in Christ who don't believe the same thing w.r.t. certain issues and that tolerance must be practiced over concurrence. This still does not mean that there isn't absolute truth to be gained because the people there are still described as 'having faith' and as 'weak in faith' - not as 'equal in faith'.

Besides, as you said, this tolerance over concurrence applies only to certain issues and not others. We don't see Paul tolerating the differing beliefs of the Galatian believers in Christ.

FC - "In relation to different doctrines held by those who are in Christ, I’m a relativist. Thus my unusual belief that we are to keep the unity of the Spirit, not the unity of doctrine."
Your belief is not unusual at all - as long as you have defined rightly what to tolerate and what to concur on. That's where there is disparity. We are no longer under the law but under grace - if any believer in Christ were to stray from this, I would strive with the intent to present truth to them against this erroneous belief, commending them to the corrective work of God alone. But if one believed they must not eat certain foods in order to be pleasing to God, I too will observe that in their presence out of my tolerance for their beliefs and to not be a stumbling block to them.


FC - "What we each believe has had no influence for change in the other’s belief."
Neither will it. Only God is able to effect such change and only He does.

FC - "Where you are now, I have already been."
I recollect you saying something to the effect that you haven't yet received any experiential reality from Christ indicating that man plays no causative role in being regenerated by God. Have I got that wrong?

 

[for_his_glory]

I did not write this, but do agree with the supporting scriptures and have permission from Joe to post this in forums.


FREEWILL
By Joe R. Price
joe@bibleanswer.com

God did not predestine the man (which individuals would be saved & lost), He predestined the plan (how men would be saved) - read again Acts 10:34-35; Eph. 1:3-12; Rom. 8:28-30; 10:9-17.

The Bible reveals that regarding free-will and predestination it is not one or the other, but rather both. That is, the Bible teaches both the free-will of man and God's election or predestination. Unfortunately the teachings and creeds of men have misdefined these Biblical concepts so that the impression is left that one cannot have both, but only one or the other. We must accept the whole counsel of God on this subject instead of the wisdom of men (Gal. 1:6-10; 1 Cor. 1:18-21).

Many men teach that man either has no free-will (fatalism) or limited amounts of it. The Bible teaches that every person with a moral capacity has the freedom of will to decide whether or not to obey God. Simply put, the Bible teaches that God elected (predestined or set in place) to save every soul who fears God and works righteousness, (Acts 10:34-35). That is, before time eternal, God predestined that men would be saved "in Christ" (Eph. 1:3-4, 7-12). God predestined the "plan" of human redemption (cf. Eph. 3:10-11).

God also determined that man would have free-will, the ability and responsibility to choose to obey Him (cf. Gen. 3:1-6; Josh. 24:15; Matt. 11:28). God did not predestine the man (which individuals would be saved & lost), He predestined the plan (how men would be saved) - read again Acts 10:34-35; Eph. 1:3-12; Rom. 8:28-30; 10:9-17.

 

[childeye]

I did not write this, but do agree with the supporting scriptures and have permission from Joe to post this in forums.


FREEWILL
By Joe R. Price
joe@bibleanswer.com

God did not predestine the man (which individuals would be saved & lost), He predestined the plan (how men would be saved) - read again Acts 10:34-35; Eph. 1:3-12; Rom. 8:28-30; 10:9-17.

The Bible reveals that regarding free-will and predestination it is not one or the other, but rather both. That is, the Bible teaches both the free-will of man and God's election or predestination. Unfortunately the teachings and creeds of men have misdefined these Biblical concepts so that the impression is left that one cannot have both, but only one or the other. We must accept the whole counsel of God on this subject instead of the wisdom of men (Gal. 1:6-10; 1 Cor. 1:18-21).

Many men teach that man either has no free-will (fatalism) or limited amounts of it. The Bible teaches that every person with a moral capacity has the freedom of will to decide whether or not to obey God. Simply put, the Bible teaches that God elected (predestined or set in place) to save every soul who fears God and works righteousness, (Acts 10:34-35). That is, before time eternal, God predestined that men would be saved "in Christ" (Eph. 1:3-4, 7-12). God predestined the "plan" of human redemption (cf. Eph. 3:10-11).

God also determined that man would have free-will, the ability and responsibility to choose to obey Him (cf. Gen. 3:1-6; Josh. 24:15; Matt. 11:28). God did not predestine the man (which individuals would be saved & lost), He predestined the plan (how men would be saved) - read again Acts 10:34-35; Eph. 1:3-12; Rom. 8:28-30; 10:9-17.

The problem I have with this teaching is that so many scriptures such as God chose the lowly rich in faith,the carnal mind cannot be subject to God, the eyes are the lamps of the soul, it is not of him who willeth but God who showeth mercy, God reveals to the children what He hides from the scholarly, are put in question. We have the testimony of Paul himself an Apostle of Christ, and his transformation is documented. Paul wrote much of the New Testament. In all honesty and in all Godly fear, shall we ignore Paul who died for Christ to follow Mr. Price?

You have set up a false dichotomy. No freewill is not fatalism, it is servitude. For the opposite of free is slave. The choice is simply whom will you be slave to and whom will you be free from, whom will you believe is true? This makes the word free relative. But even so, one cannot choose without an option, and hence God chose the lowly things and He is with the meek and humble, blessed are the poor etc... The Gospel resists the high and proud things of the world. Moreover Genesis 3:1-6 does not verify freewill. Sin lieth at the door and his desire is unto you. This does not come by the will of men, but by the actions of one man unto all men. Nor does Joshua 24:15, for Joshua clearly states "you cannot serve God" and that the people who did not listen to Joshua in arrogance of themselves are witnesses against themselves.

I think most people think if there is a choice there is a freewill. This is confusing a simple will with a free will, for all of life is choices since we must choose to be doing something at all times seeing that we are sentient. Hence being alive, it is ever proof to those who can't see this, that the will is free when in reality they are simply witnessing life. This evades the moral question of whether there exist spiritual powers that have influence over men through lies and Truth. For the ability to make a decision to follow the right path is dependent upon seeing the Truth. Hence the Truth is preached that God is Spirit, He is Love eternal, and He lives in us by grace through faith. Meanwhile the outlook that we are free from any other powers on a spiritual level at the outset, to be whatever we want to be is not acknowledging this.

You say God determined that man would have a freewill, the ability and responsibility to choose to obey Him. No scriptures support this. We began in trust of God and that trust inspires obedience, the desire to serve. This trust was never tested by God, but by Satan. For who tests a bond except one who doesn't believe in its' integrity. One must also question character as if it is attributable to the person rather than to the spirit living inside him. Good grief how does Mister Price suppose a man is born again? God built all upon faith so He would not conspire against Himself. The desire to serve is based upon your image of God. Satan deceived mankind with a false image of god, albeit it was not false to him. We become morally whatever image we hold of God. hence we are made in God's image. What you are describing is not righteousness by faith but righteousness by works.

Let's remember, Satan proposed disobedience to God not God nor man, and since we began in innocence we were corruptible. So if we ccall freewill the abilityTo teach that men have the right to be wrong is hypocrisy at the outset counting ignorance equal to knowledge and the path towards death equal to the path towards life.

 

[for_his_glory]

Is it not our own choice to accept or reject something? Was it not Lucifer's choice to rebel against God? Did Jesus not say not my will, but your will be done? (meaning Gods will) Sounds like we are free to choose what we want and we will those things into our lives by the choices we make whether they are good or bad choices as to what we want to believe. We are only made righteous by the blood of the Lamb and not by works, but yet it is our choice to accept that blood or reject it in our own lives.

 

[childeye]

Is it not our own choice to accept or reject something?

This is a trick question. For it does not take into perspective both subjective and objective points of view. For example, if two options are presented and one must choose to proceed, he will make a decision because he must not because he desired to. So yes he will choose but not from his own volition but because of necessity. Hence Satan was able to manipulate mankind by proposing the option. To elaborate further, the decision one makes is contingent upon knowledge and ignorance not a freewill as in the ability to decide.

Was it not Lucifer's choice to rebel against God?

Again a trick question. Again you are being only subjective in your reasoning. According to scripture he was proud and as we all know pride goeth before a fall so one does not see it coming for he is blind in his pride. Does one choose to be proud or is it the consequence of taking God's attributes for granted and counting them as your own? So Satan chose according to his errant evaluation of God thinking in arrogance he was free to better his station under God trusting in his abilities.

Did Jesus not say not my will, but your will be done? (meaning Gods will) Sounds like we are free to choose what we want and we will those things into our lives by the choices we make whether they are good or bad choices as to what we want to believe.

You now have morphed the definition of freewill from simply choosing freely, to choosing according to what one believes. This second definition nullifies the first yet is the more accurate of the two in practical reality for it takes both a subjective and objective point of view. So if one is deceived by a power more knowledgable and cunning through subtlty, is he not then choosing out of deception and not knowledge? Meanwhile Jesus' is saying "thy will be done" because he trusts God and not himself, something Satan would not do since he views his will subjectively and consequently he does not regard God with any objectivity, nor does he esteem Him as God. Hence righteousness is by faith.

We are only made righteous by the blood of the Lamb and not by works, but yet it is our choice to accept that blood or reject it in our own lives.

It is impossible to prove a negative. That is simple math. So it is we forever can assert that one could have gone the other way without ever being able to prove it or disprove it. Yet we can tell what spirits reside in us according to which way we believe. If I believe God reveals the Christ and it is not of myself that I have come to believe, I acknowledge I am in ignorance and that there is a Truth I must come to see, and apart from God's active presence I would remain in a state of blindness. If I think it is my freechoice to take it or leave it. I do not acknowledge this as valued knowledge nor do I esteem God as God. If I admit I am confirmed as unable to not sin and am worthy of death according to the Old Testament, I must admit that life is only available through Christ and that only in the promise of God to Abraham is there hope for me. This brings forth gratefullness and humility. If I believe I have chosen Christ due to my own superior intellect compared to those who did not believe, what spirit is that? That which is darkness through carnal pride. Moreover I have already stated that God chose the lowly things to put to naught the high things. And we have Paul as a testimony that he was transformed according to the workings of God not to his own.

 

[Former Christian]

Ivdavid

All the time I was in school, I was told by teachers, “ask questions if you don’t understand somethingâ€. I was told that if don’t know the meaning of a word, “go look it up in the dictionaryâ€. Because of their stupidity, I did very poorly in school. Couldn’t ask questions because I had no basis for questions. Couldn’t look up words I couldn’t spell. All I learned from school was how to read, write, and do math. Learned that in the first three years. For those three years, I’m thankful. But the other thirteen years were a waste of time because I learned very little useful information. Didn’t even end up doing what I went to college for. And yes, I was able to go to college in spite of my prior poor grades because all they really cared about was the money. At that time, they sold a service. And anyone could buy. From what I’ve heard, the service is much poorer now, and the price much higher. I’ve learned infinitely more on my own than I ever did in school.

The point is, you can’t ask questions about that which you don’t understand. You can only ask questions based on what you do understand. And even though I’ve written a great deal to you explaining what I believe and why, you still fail to understand. You’ve been away a long time. Ample time for me to think about why you are incapable of understanding what I’ve written. You write intelligently, so it’s not because of intelligence. The reason finally became obvious. The reason is evident in the following quote from this latest post:

“This is what I believe - that you are able to have faith in God only because He is merciful towards you, having elected you as a child of promise. And this election takes place before you have done anything good or bad - so it's not based on you, rather it's based on God's will.â€

You’re a Calvinist. I’ve met very few Calvinists who were capable of understanding another’s viewpoint. John MacArthur is the most intelligent Calvinist that I’ve listened to and read. He’s very capable at presenting the Calvinist viewpoint. And he’s especially effective in relation to Bible commentary. Yet he’s incapable of understanding a non-Calvinist viewpoint. That became painfully noticeable to me when I heard him attempt to say something about a couple of viewpoints that I already understood at the time. You’re manner of presenting the Calvinist viewpoint in the form of questioning another’s viewpoint took me in initially. I really thought you were trying to understand my viewpoint. But time always tells.

You’ll never understand anything I say until you learn how to put aside your own preconceived ideas. It took me a long time to learn how to do that. It’s not something I can teach you. It’s something you’ll have to learn on your own, as I have. My eyes were opened by a series of events. But it is possible to understand another’s viewpoint without reading ones own into it. And that’s precisely what you’re doing, asking questions based on your own viewpoint. Of course you can’t understand my viewpoint if you are just projecting your own viewpoint onto it.

I ask you. What does this mean?

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me


FC

 

[ivdavid]

Former Christian,

FC - "..even though I’ve written a great deal to you explaining what I believe and why, you still fail to understand."
Okay. I am at this point, contrary to what you may think of my intelligence quotient, inclined to think of myself as really dense - because I honestly thought you hadn't explained what you believed and why concerning certain topics. I wanted to know precisely what beliefs you held on topics such as the law and election and the nature of man etc. [in the context of freewill] and here you are informing me that you've already dealt with these and in detail. I genuinely don't recollect going through such content and what's worse, I can't even find them now on re-reading. Help me out - the gist of what I desire to know are here -

I want to know how you reconcile what you term 'our human [causative] faith' with 'not being under the law [of works]' and the sinful nature of man. Now obviously you do reconcile them somehow - i'm interested in knowing how. For this, I need to know what you mean by the 'law of works' - the last i remember, you felt Lev 18:5 did not stand for justification by the law and I'd asked for your elaboration on that. If you have given that somewhere, then I've missed it - kindly point me there.

I want to know how you reconcile 'our human [causative] faith' in the context of depriving the flesh of any glory before God. There you bring in the soul as a causative entity - we begin discussing Rom 7 and I have a question on how you reconcile that part of Scripture. If it has already been answered, point me there. Else, i think i'd struggle understanding your world-view not having sufficient data?

The solution to depriving the flesh of any glory is found in God's election. I think we left where you hinted at our causative faith being the basis of election and my question of how you'd reconcile that with Rom 9:11. If you've already dealt with this, don't mind the inconvenience and point me there.

And primarily, what are we to believe - to believe into Christ? I have honestly searched for where you've dealt with this but I couldn't find it. My apologies for being blind enough to have missed it even now - help me find it please.


FC - "The reason [for why you are incapable of understanding what I’ve written] is evident in the following quote from this latest post:"
ivdavid - “This is what I believe - that you are able to have faith in God only because He is merciful towards you, having elected you as a child of promise. And this election takes place before you have done anything good or bad - so it's not based on you, rather it's based on God's will.â€
FC - "You’re a Calvinist. I’ve met very few Calvinists who were capable of understanding another’s viewpoint."
Okay. I'm not sure how to go about this - but i think i'll start with making sure this is an objective statement of fact from you and not a statement made out of prejudice. We wouldn't want to start slipping into dealing with ad hominem fallacies here.

Firstly, is anything that I've written there not biblical.
"you are able to have faith in God only because He is merciful towards you" - Rom 9: 3,16
"having elected you as a child of promise." - Rom 9:7-8
"And this election takes place before you have done anything good or bad" - Rom 9:11
"so it's not based on you, rather it's based on God's will." - Rom 9:15.

Frankly, I don't check if something is calvinistic or not to believe it - I just check if it's biblical or not. And if it so happens to coincide with some already determined system of belief, I wouldn't mind referring to it by that name - but the starting point or basis is never any prevalent system of belief out there.

Secondly, you state the premise that most calvinists are incapable of understanding another's viewpoint -
a) The very fact that some calvinists are capable of understanding another's viewpoint should be validation against calvinism playing any role in this issue here as such. Else, if calvinism was the cause of one's inability to understand others' viewpoints, no calvinist must be found an exception to the rule. I take it you have only observed this as a sweeping generalization but to cite this fallacy as fact from which inferences can be drawn amounts to prejudice, right?

b) More importantly, you make the connection that since I'm a calvinist[which I have never professed as a system I am under, rather as a system some of my beliefs happen to match up with], it is quite obvious why i'm unable to understand your world-view. Could you specifically point out how and which beliefs put forth by calvinism render a person so obviously incapable of understanding another's viewpoint?



FC - "The point is, you can’t ask questions about that which you don’t understand. You can only ask questions based on what you do understand."
I can't even understand this. Your getting frustrated is not without reason, i suppose. Anyway, could you elaborate - why would one want to ask questions based on what he has already understood? Not like you're to be examined on your knowledge or something. Isn't the point of asking questions to gain understanding that one lacks in the first place? Where am I missing the point - or were you referring to something entirely different?

FC - "You’re manner of presenting the Calvinist viewpoint in the form of questioning another’s viewpoint took me in initially. I really thought you were trying to understand my viewpoint."
We've gone through this before. I am really trying to understand your worldview - this is my primary intent. I have no other manipulative agenda that you seem so suspicious of. I have already explained myself before in post#402 - I'll do so again.

I'd like to understand your belief system to find exactly where we differ in our beliefs. To that end, I ask you to state your beliefs and then enquire on some of them - those which I, on the outside, find to be conflicting - as to how you reconcile them. You give me your supporting beliefs that resolve such conflicts for you and I get to understand your belief framework. That's the whole agenda.

FC - "And that’s precisely what you’re doing, asking questions based on your own viewpoint. Of course you can’t understand my viewpoint if you are just projecting your own viewpoint onto it."
Please let's distinguish between my questions 'involving' my viewpoints and my questions being 'based' on my viewpoint. As I said earlier, I'd like to see how you reconcile beliefs that seem conflicting to me on the outside. And the most obvious ones are the ones we do not agree upon foundationally. This is not to say that my questions are expecting some reply that conforms to what I believe. I just happen to start from here and would like to observe all your personal beliefs and how they are reconciled within your personal belief framework. I 'involve' my viewpoints merely as a starting point - not as a template to 'base' your replies upon - so no need to worry. My problems with understanding your belief framework, I feel, has more to do with the need to know more of your accompanying beliefs that support the main ones you've already stated.

FC - "I ask you. What does this mean?"
John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me
All believers in Christ, whom He knows personally and lives within, can hear and understand what Christ teaches them and they follow His teachings without being carried away by any robber's false teachings.

 

[for_his_glory]

freewill as defined by The American Heritage Dictionary:

free- not imprisoned or enslaved; at liberty. not controlled by obligation or the will of another

will - the mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action

I am free to choose and believe in that which presents itself to me as fact or fiction as in the case of Christ who has made himself known to me by his spirit to reveal to me the hidden things of his word as I have left my once own will to follow that which is the will of the father in my own life to live a life that is pleasing to the Father. It is hard to reject something that has been made manifest in your own life, but I could have freely chosen to ignore those mysteries of Christ to lead a life that could have been pleasing to the flesh.

Until one has absolutes they will wonder this earth by their own carnal capabilities thus their own freewill. If we keep our conversations simple enough so even a child could understand what we are talking about then we could understand where each of us are coming from.

 

[reba]

A kind reminder .....


9 - Please keep posts down to a respectable length and provide source and/or links for your info. We want to respect copyrighted material. Plus, you stand a better chance of getting your post read if it contains a link with an excerpt from source that's relative to your point.

 

[childeye]

freewill as defined by The American Heritage Dictionary:

free- not imprisoned or enslaved; at liberty. not controlled by obligation or the will of another

will - the mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action

I am free to choose and believe in that which presents itself to me as fact or fiction as in the case of Christ who has made himself known to me by his spirit to reveal to me the hidden things of his word as I have left my once own will to follow that which is the will of the father in my own life to live a life that is pleasing to the Father. It is hard to reject something that has been made manifest in your own life, but I could have freely chosen to ignore those mysteries of Christ to lead a life that could have been pleasing to the flesh.

Until one has absolutes they will wonder this earth by their own carnal capabilities thus their own freewill. If we keep our conversations simple enough so even a child could understand what we are talking about then we could understand where each of us are coming from.

I understand perfectly where your coming from. You made a choice not to follow your flesh and follow Christ. You claim however you could have chosen otherwise with no evidence to support your claim. The issue is faith, belief, trust. Faith is not a decision, it is a belief within an object or as in the case of God, a person. So it is as if you are saying I decided to trust God and not trust my flesh. Yet is such a trust without any provocation? WHY do you trust God? Can you now choose not to trust Him and tomorrow choose to trust Him again? Is it your freewill as you say or is it the Holy Spirit revealing Truth that you cannot deny? Let me give you a hint. The word evangelist means persuader. Truth is not impotent. Truth is self evident. For this reason John the baptist said to the pharisees who also believed in freewill, that God could make children out of stones.

You say Christ is teaching you, yet it is he himself who said the Truth will set you free from the slavery of sin. Is he now contradicting himself by saying you were always free to do so without Truth? Do you honestly expect us to believe he told you you are free to reject him and God when before he called it slavery to Satan? He said many times, no one can come to me unless it is given to come by my Father. You say you can jeject Truth but this is not a free will that does this, it is rightly called dishonesty. God wants two things from a man Honesty and humility. Without these the will cannot be free from lies.

 

[Elijah674]

I understand perfectly where your coming from. You made a choice not to follow your flesh and follow Christ. You claim however you could have chosen otherwise with no evidence to support your claim. The issue is faith, belief, trust. Faith is not a decision, it is a belief within an object or as in the case of God, a person. So it is as if you are saying I decided to trust God and not trust my flesh. Yet is such a trust without any provocation? WHY do you trust God? Can you now choose not to trust Him and tomorrow choose to trust Him again? Is it your freewill as you say or is it the Holy Spirit revealing Truth that you cannot deny? Let me give you a hint. The word evangelist means persuader. Truth is not impotent. Truth is self evident. For this reason John the baptist said to the pharisees who also believed in freewill, that God could make children out of stones.

You say Christ is teaching you, yet it is he himself who said the Truth will set you free from the slavery of sin. Is he now contradicting himself by saying you were always free to do so without Truth? Do you honestly expect us to believe he told you you are free to reject him and God when before he called it slavery to Satan? He said many times, no one can come to me unless it is given to come by my Father. You say you can jeject Truth but this is not a free will that does this, it is rightly called dishonesty. God wants two things from a man Honesty and humility. Without these the will cannot be free from lies.

Too much personal GIBBERISH! Why not quite the 2 Cor. 4:2's twisting stuff. We all know what the post said! We need Gods WORD not man's Jer. 17:5.

Man was created PERFECT! (very good is such if 'we' do not teach that the Godhead CREATED A FLAWED SINFUL CREATION )

Then Gen. has a [FORBIDDEN TREE RIGHT IN THE MIDST OF THE GARDEN] put there BY GOD! Then what??? They were programed to eat of it and HAVE NO FREE CHOICE IN THE MATTER! Hogwash!! (2 Peter 2:20-22's kind!)

If that was so, we can toss out ALL OF THE [[WORD OF GOD]]. Heb. 6:18!! (which most do in teaching 'knowingly' false stuff anyway)

And this is just one of your many false teachings! Again James 2:10 forum! But note Eccl. 3:14 + Rev.'s last couple verses of WARNINGS to all postings from God!

--Elijah

 

[childeye]

Too much personal GIBBERISH! Why not quite the 2 Cor. 4:2's twisting stuff. We all know what the post said! We need Gods WORD not man's Jer. 17:5.

Man was created PERFECT! (very good is such if 'we' do not teach that the Godhead CREATED A FLAWED SINFUL CREATION )

Then Gen. has a [FORBIDDEN TREE RIGHT IN THE MIDST OF THE GARDEN] put there BY GOD! Then what??? They were programed to eat of it and HAVE NO FREE CHOICE IN THE MATTER! Hogwash!! (2 Peter 2:20-22's kind!)

If that was so, we can toss out ALL OF THE [[WORD OF GOD]]. Heb. 6:18!! (which most do in teaching 'knowingly' false stuff anyway)

And this is just one of your many false teachings! Again James 2:10 forum! But note Eccl. 3:14 + Rev.'s last couple verses of WARNINGS to all postings from God!

--Elijah

Yes I do believe you are in grave error. The bible says that Eve was beguiled by a lying serpent and you wish to ignore that so as to apply blame. As the accuser of the brethren was kicked out of heaven so are all who accuse with him. Who's teaching God created a flawed creation? Not me. I am teaching that to the pure of heart all is pure. The Word of God is Spirit. When a person finds fault with what is perfect, he is corrupt in both heart and mind. It is unfortunate but true we must learn what it is we have lost by losing it. Thanks be to God we have a chance to get it back again through Christ when we learn to cherish what is good, not complain and find fault with it. In Godly fear I must say you should be careful what you are handing out here in this post for God renders to each man according to his own mouth. I will therefore pray for you and I ask God's counsel come upon you that He may correct you.

 

[childeye]

=for_his_glory;567903]freewill as defined by The American Heritage Dictionary:

free- not imprisoned or enslaved; at liberty. not controlled by obligation or the will of another

will - the mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action

Free is defined as not imprisoned above and the scriptures say that the Gospel is preached to set the prisoners free. As the scripture declares there are prisoners as Paul said,"Sold unto sin",there must be people who are not free or the Gospel is preached in vain and Paul knows not what he is talking about.

Free is defined as liberty above. Such liberty according to scripture was purchased for us by the blood of the son of God. Hence either we who believe this must admit we were sold to sin and not in liberty if it is to stand true that the blood of the Christ bought our liberty. Otherwise we deny him who bought us liberty through great suffering if we were already at liberty.

Free above is defined as not controlled by obligation or will of another. He who believes a lie contrived to deceive is under control of that persons will. Since scripture says Satan deceives the whole world and the Truth will set you free one must in honesty admit that if we are to believe scripture there is a will that controls others through deception. Moreover we are now obligated to the Christ to do his will and live for hin in service of him so that in effect we are servants of God or as Paul said in chains to Christ.

Will is defined as the mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses

I see no problem with these definitions as they do validate along with scripture that the word free is relative and that men are simply vessels moved by either spirits of darkness that deceive men into serving dead works or the One Spirit of Light that causes men through seeing the Truth to serve the living God.