FREE WILL

[Eventide]

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..

You raise an excellent point here regarding Eve.. although we can't ignore the fact that Paul teaches us that the man was NOT deceived.. iow, it was disobedience, not deception.

I would agree that there's a significant difference between being deceived into doing something versus doing it knowingly.. ie, being disobedient.

Not only that.. but we also know that Adam could HEAR and UNDERSTAND that the Lord was CALLING him.. even after he fell into disobedience..

 

[childeye]

You raise an excellent point here regarding Eve.. although we can't ignore the fact that Paul teaches us that the man was NOT deceived.. iow, it was disobedience, not deception.

I would agree that there's a significant difference between being deceived into doing something versus doing it knowingly.. ie, being disobedient.

Not only that.. but we also know that Adam could HEAR and UNDERSTAND that the Lord was CALLING him.. even after he fell into disobedience..

I know the point you are making. You are saying Adam knew what he was doing because scripture says he was not deceived. But hoping you are open minded, let us take a look at that scripture. The context Paul is applying it is not meant to imply culpability. How do I know this? Because he says the man should be over the woman in authority because he was not the one deceived by the Serpent. This means he is saying the transgression did not enter through Adam, not that Adam knew what he was doing and the woman was deceived. For if Adam did so, knowingly conspiring against God, why should he be in charge over the woman who did eat but was deceived and not openly conspiring against God? Paul is simply saying that the serpent approached the woman who was the more gullible as the glory of man.

So how do we explain the fact that Adam ate without being the one whom the serpent approached to beguile? I believe when he saw the woman eat and not die and she proclaimed that her eyes were indeed open, Adam was faced with a dilemna. For either Satan was telling the Truth even as the woman was testifying to and God was indeed a liar and keeping man down purposely, or the woman whom he loved and was a piece of himself was lying. Faced with this, in a moment of doubt all the way around, he ate to find out for himself. Sounds simple but yet it is possible and I could see myself doing exactly that.

I know this is conjecture but I have examined the spirits that live in a person according to which way you believe. Please read this from another thread:

FC, I first and foremost would express to you that for me the issue is of what is true or false. To be precise; If I believe Adam is culpable, as in a malicious intent or perhaps better described as willful and wanton defiance towards God, I would be resentful of Adam and disavow or loathe that he was ever the father of men. If however I believe Adam is culpable because he was naive or too trusting, this brings forth an entirely different spirit pertaining to how I view him. There are two different spirits that are produced by these two differing outlooks. Which one is true? One spirit is of accusation and condemnation and one is of understanding and mercy.

I would beg you and all in this forum for your sincere honesty in this matter in acknowledging the issue and not skirting it, so that I might not be alone in pondering the consequences of our beliefs and all the subsequent actions that will transpire according to what spirits live inside us through what we believe as well as revealing what spirits reside in us according to how we judge.

My point is that anyone who says Adam intentionally sinned says more about them than it does about Adam. Case in point; Note that God said Job was an upright man and Satan said If God took away all he had given him he would curse God. Does this not expose the sentiments of Satan for all to see? Satan said because Job was flesh he would curse God if God would only bring pain upon Job. Does not this show Satan is how he claims Job to be? It is obvious to me Satan has no purity of heart, for he supposes Job doesn't. Darkness does not comprehend Light.

Likewise, the issue of freewill when used to blame or "hold people accountable" so as to condemn, is like Satan being exposed in men. Adam is accountable as are we all but not because we have a freewill to sin or not according to our own discretion. Only the corrupt minds would think sin is even desireable, and desire is the will. It would be like someone saying, "I could rape that little girl over there if I wanted to". What would you think of someone who said that? I would think they are sick or possessed of devils, not that their will was free. So it is I find myself defending Adam's blunder against those who are unwittingly condemning themselves under the guise of acting responsibly.

I hope I've made my point. I have as forthrightly as able tried to. I appreciate your time and attention and your forthright correspondence.

Yes Adam was being called by God after eating of the fruit. Exactly what conclusion do you wish me to consider that you draw from this?

 

[Eventide]

I know the point you are making. You are saying Adam knew what he was doing because scripture says he was not deceived. But hoping you are open minded, let us take a look at that scripture. The context Paul is applying it is not meant to imply culpability. How do I know this? Because he says the man should be over the woman in authority because he was not the one deceived by the Serpent. This means he is saying the transgression did not enter through Adam, not that Adam knew what he was doing and the woman was deceived. For if Adam did so, knowingly conspiring against God, why should he be in charge over the woman who did eat but was deceived and not openly conspiring against God? Paul is simply saying that the serpent approached the woman who was the more gullible as the glory of man.

So how do we explain the fact that Adam ate without being the one whom the serpent approached to beguile? I believe when he saw the woman eat and not die and she proclaimed that her eyes were indeed open, Adam was faced with a dilemna. For either Satan was telling the Truth even as the woman was testifying to and God was indeed a liar and keeping man down purposely, or the woman whom he loved and was a piece of himself was lying. Faced with this, in a moment of doubt all the way around, he ate to find out for himself. Sounds simple but yet it is possible and I could see myself doing exactly that.

I know this is conjecture but I have examined the spirits that live in a person according to which way you believe. Please read this from another thread:

If you'd like to rationalize away the simple truth of scripture to make it say the exact opposite of what it does say.. then I would suggest that you can make the truth anything that you'd like it to be, rather than let it correct us as it should.

Yes Adam was being called by God after eating of the fruit. Exactly what conclusion do you wish me to consider that you draw from this?

It's a living and powerful, clear biblical precedent which shows that man in his fallen state can HEAR the voice of God and UNDERSTAND that He is calling them.

 

[childeye]

=Eventide;568140]If you'd like to rationalize away the simple truth of scripture to make it say the exact opposite of what it does say.. then I would suggest that you can make the truth anything that you'd like it to be, rather than let it correct us as it should.

I am not attempting to rationalize away the Truth. Please receive me in the same way you would want to be received. Is it so hard to do the second commandment and love me as you would want to be loved? I fail to see where I am wrong in weighing what scripture says. Paul is not condemning Adam for Paul has no place to speak as such since he himself persecuted the Christ as Saul and is guilty of being manipulated by Satan's lies. Paul is no hypocrit. The comment that it is conjecture is being applied to my conjecture of why Adam ate not to what Paul said about Adam not being as easily beguiled as the woman. I also believe God has kept this open to speculation to weigh each man according to how he judges it, to make manifest the pure of heart.

It's a living and powerful, clear biblical precedent which shows that man in his fallen state can HEAR the voice of God and UNDERSTAND that He is calling them.

So? Who is denying Adam heard God calling him? And how is it you take this to mean that this is meant to be applied to all men. How do you reconcile the statement that Jesus and Paul said this below?


John 10:2-5

New International Version (NIV)

2 The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5 But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.”

John 10:25-29

New International Version (NIV)


25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[a]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.

Romans 8:29-31

New International Version (NIV)


29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. More Than Conquerors

31 What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?

1 Corinthians 1:20-31

New International Version (NIV)



20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. 26 Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”[a]

 

[Elijah674]

I think too, that it is impossible to reject Him once you have seen that He does exist. I don't think I had the free will to choose to see. And I had no free will to reject Him once I DID see.


And but AFTER you have the sight to see He exists, THEN do you think there is such a thing as free will?

And why do you think that men say we have free will to choose to see Him or not? Is it because it is too painful to have to wonder why He gave you your sight but has not given it to some others? And so to alleviate the pain, they have to blame the blind man?

Thank you for trying to help me Reba. I've got some knots. I just recently, like in the last three days, just got sick and tired of just ignoring them.

??What about the ones of John 12:42-43 who did actually not only BELIEVE but did REJECT Christ?? And the reason is even given. But that was in the NT, so what about the actual STRIVING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT along with Noah's preaching for 120 years mind'you?? Not only striving on, but STRIVING TO GET IN THEM!!
OK: The Rev. 17:1-5 ones are prophesied as the great whore of all earth's mankind + with daughter s! And how does ones think that they [[ALL]] became such with the Rev. 18:4 verse still there for their FREE CHOICE????

And of these ones, all are lost, and the today ones?? Most have already been seen as past/tense! (Nothing it seems will move them!) And these church denominations all have been around well past any 120 years of the Holy Spirits Strivings! (see 1 Peter 4:17 + Rev. 22:11-12!)

--Elijah

 

[Eventide]

I am not attempting to rationalize away the Truth.

Are you suggesting that Adam WAS deceived when the scriptures teach that he WAS NOT deceived ?

Please receive me in the same way you would want to be received. Is it so hard to do the second commandment and love me as you would want to be loved?

This is typically called a conversation childeye.. I have received what you said and offered my own comments on the matter. You came back and suggested that the scriptures say the exact opposite of what they do say.. and once again.. I responded to that..

How is that not receiving you ? ? ?

I fail to see where I am wrong in weighing what scripture says. Paul is not condemning Adam for Paul has no place to speak as such since he himself persecuted the Christ as Saul and is guilty of being manipulated by Satan's lies. Paul is no hypocrit.

Once again.. are you saying that Adam WAS deceived when the scriptures say that he was NOT deceived..?

Yes or No ?

So? Who is denying Adam heard God calling him? And how is it you take this to mean that this is meant to be applied to all men.

Are you in Adam ? Do you believe that God calling Adam represents exaxtly that or do you believe that it only speaks of Adam's case and that's it ?

 

[childeye]

=Eventide;568150]Are you suggesting that Adam WAS deceived when the scriptures teach that he WAS NOT deceived ?

You are arguing semantics. As I said you have taken out of context what Paul said. So I will answer your question in both contexts. First in the context that Adam should have the authority over the woman because he was not the one whom the transgression entered in through as Paul has said, no he was not the one deceived by the serpent as scripture clearly states that the serpent spoke to the woman. In the context that he ate of the fruit after seeing Eve was not dead and that she testified that her eyes indeed were open just as the serpent had said, yes he was deceived. How do I know this? Because Satan is a liar and our sinfullness and inability to end our corruption is proof of it. For God was right and we do die because the knowledge of good and evil is poison to corruptible flesh.

Please seek to understand that if I were to say otherwise I would still have a guilty conscience and the blood of Christ could have no effect upon me. I could not be justified as being deceived myself and helpless in my sinful condition as Joshua said, if I now claim Adam knowingly disobeyed God with the intent of rebellion.

This is typically called a conversation childeye.. I have received what you said and offered my own comments on the matter. You came back and suggested that the scriptures say the exact opposite of what they do say.. and once again.. I responded to that..

How is that not receiving you ? ? ?

Through semantics they only appear the opposite. You said I could rationalize away the Truth if I wanted to, as if that is what I had done. You did not acknowledge the sincere effort I have made for your benefit, to show how the contexts change the meaning of the term. You still have not addressed the clear explanation.

Once again.. are you saying that Adam WAS deceived when the scriptures say that he was NOT deceived..?

Yes or No ?

As Paul is applying it no, he was not the one approached by the serpent. As you are twisting Pauls application to mean, yes he was deceived. So let's see Eventide how you would judge if you were in charge since you are so eager to do so... You have the man Adam who knowingly ate and is not deceived but wantingly and knowingly desires to distrust God and count Him untrustworthy and the woman who did not know nor want to distrust God but was beguiled into doing so. If you were God who would you put in charge over the other? By your take of Pauls words in the context you have manufactured you are saying Paul thinks the traitor should be in charge of the gullible.

Are you in Adam ? Do you believe that God calling Adam represents exaxtly that or do you believe that it only speaks of Adam's case and that's it ?

I believe God was in the Garden looking for Adam. To read more into it is ignoring clear scripture and adding to what is not there to begin with.

 

[childeye]

??What about the ones of John 12:42-43 who did actually not only BELIEVE but did REJECT Christ?? And the reason is even given. But that was in the NT, so what about the actual STRIVING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT along with Noah's preaching for 120 years mind'you?? Not only striving on, but STRIVING TO GET IN THEM!!
OK: The Rev. 17:1-5 ones are prophesied as the great whore of all earth's mankind + with daughter s! And how does ones think that they [[ALL]] became such with the Rev. 18:4 verse still there for their FREE CHOICE????

And of these ones, all are lost, and the today ones?? Most have already been seen as past/tense! (Nothing it seems will move them!) And these church denominations all have been around well past any 120 years of the Holy Spirits Strivings! (see 1 Peter 4:17 + Rev. 22:11-12!)

--Elijah

Elijah, what you are regarding as free choice is a subjective view as a man. To God, He is seperating the faithful from the unfaithful according to His plan that makes all men nothing and God everything. The spiritual from the carnal. As He declares in the Gospel, to make the seeing blind and the blind seeing, to make mountains into valleys and the valleys into mountains. As Paul said to put to naught the wisdom of this world so no man can boast against another. Can you see this?

I am not therefore saying we don't choose in the sense we make decisions, but that how we choose makes manifest what is inside of us according to God's purpose. For if I am wise according to this world, Christ is foolishness. Hence Peter wrote, we preach the hidden wisdom that was kept hidden from the foundation of the world, but has been now revealed unto us unto our glory. For had the princes of this world known this wisdom, they would have not crucified the Christ.

 

[Elijah674]

Elijah, what you are regarding as free choice is a subjective view as a man. To God, He is seperating the faithful from the unfaithful according to His plan that makes all men nothing and God everything. The spiritual from the carnal. As He declares in the Gospel, to make the seeing blind and the blind seeing, to make mountains into valleys and the valleys into mountains. As Paul said to put to naught the wisdom of this world so no man can boast against another. Can you see this?

I am not therefore saying we don't choose in the sense we make decisions, but that how we choose makes manifest what is inside of us according to God's purpose. For if I am wise according to this world, Christ is foolishness. Hence Peter wrote, we preach the hidden wisdom that was kept hidden from the foundation of the world, but has been now revealed unto us unto our glory. For had the princes of this world known this wisdom, they would have not crucified the Christ.

So what you are teaching is that when you go to hell if that be the case, (that, that is known by you, either way) that NO change could be made in that decision??

I could say 2 Cor. 4:2's 'dumb' things(?) like you are starting to convince me!;) But that is the devil's stuff as well, not the Godheads! +,+,+ ALL of the other gabarge stuff of OSAS & the immortal sinner + their maggots, buring eternally in hell + sun worship & the like. James 2:10 finds the [whole fold] beyond repair!
And yes, there are some saved to be blindly seen temporarlly there! John 10:16. Yet, if Christ had of been in those other folds, why the required need to call them out!

And had you & your amen corner ever read Christ's Word for who it is that will BURN THE LONGEST in hell, & why?? See Luke 12:47-48

And will these ones change? Rev. 18:4 You say NO, because they are PROGRAMED to hell, huh!:robot I will never buy that! Eze. 33:11

--Elijah

 

[childeye]

Elijah674;568171]So what you are teaching is that when you go to hell if that be the case, (that, that is known by you, either way) that NO change could be made in that decision??

I could say 2 Cor. 4:2's 'dumb' things(?) like you are starting to convince me!;) But that is the devil's stuff as well, not the Godheads! +,+,+ ALL of the other gabarge stuff of OSAS & the immortal sinner + their maggots, buring eternally in hell + sun worship & the like. James 2:10 finds the [whole fold] beyond repair!
And yes, there are some saved to be blindly seen temporarlly there! John 10:16. Yet, if Christ had of been in those other folds, why the required need to call them out!

And had you & your amen corner ever read Christ's Word for who it is that will BURN THE LONGEST in hell, & why?? See Luke 12:47-48

And will these ones change? Rev. 18:4 You say NO, because they are PROGRAMED to hell, huh!:robot I will never buy that! Eze. 33:11

--Elijah
[/QUOTE]
You make good points in this thread I am glad to say, especially Luke 12:47-48. Luke 12:47-48 is pertaining to those who have much knowledge and those who have little knowledge and in respect to the Master's will, they know and yet in their heart seek to do otherwise applied in the context that the Master will not see and is delayed in his coming. This may be taken as a warning given for the prospect that these things may or will happen to some. But God sees the hearts of men and nothing is hidden to God.

I have said to you on other posts that the true relationship with God begins with knowing God sees all and this brings forth honesty and God is able to reveal hidden faults if asked with true humility. God requires honesty and humility. The scripture in Luke 12:47-48 begins with the conduct of the one in charge beating the servants under him as if this will bring about God's will which must come by gentle grace that inspires goodness with goodness. As the one who knows has departed from this knowledge in this particular example and has now turned to fear of punishment as a means of obedience, I am against this. I am not allowed to presume that the master has given authority to beat the servants who know less than I because I am too lazy or slothful in love that I will not bend over and wash the feet of those who need such loving attention especially knowing that that is how God moved me. You have somehow equated the stripes with hell. I am not sure this is accurate.

I have said knowledge of God is the only true freewill. Can I turn away from such knowledge and now be free? Yes, I could try as this man did who the master will surprise. But one cannot run from God. In all humility I must say I am able to turn from God and do wrong, otherwise I am not being honest that there may exist hidden faults in my heart as is implied in the scripture in Luke 12:47-48. Since I do fear many stripes I always consider what pride yet can grab hold of me. If I chastise myself, God will not have to bother. Moreover the scripture is clear that it is possible that one's name can be blotted out of the book of life, so it is wise to not depart from such knowledge if one desires to even live.

If I had a freewill as in free choice, I would simply decide to not do anything that would get God mad including not have hidden faults. I would choose to ever be faithful and seek a mansion in heaven where I may know rest and peace far from the ways of this world. But I have the knowledge that I should not presume I am anything of myself so as to lean upon God and not my own strength. This is wisdom to me, as God is Love and I must keep my eyes on His Spirit, to hear His voice and follow moment by moment day by day. Such is perserverance to me. There is a shepherd and I am not my own shepherd, but just a dumb sheep. My hope is in the shepherd, not in myself.

I am not a robot, but a vessel for spirit. There is one Spirit of Truth that can live in all men and many lies that can live in one man. What fool wouldn't choose God? Any fool would desire God. For He has mansions and is able to do anything, but is this a pure love or a relationship intent on self serving motives? The fire will test the works of men whether they be of a pure heart. God however has promised a Kingdom that I believe and hope in. He will bring it to come to pass not men.

 

[Eventide]

You are arguing semantics. As I said you have taken out of context what Paul said.

Yeah I'm sure it's all just semantics in your mind.. and NOW you're telling me that I have taken Paul's words out of context.. and yet you're the one claiming that he means the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he does say.

How about we start a thread and take a poll to see how many people would see it your way.. I'd bet you'd get maybe 1 or 2 out of a thousand that would agree with you.

So I will answer your question in both contexts. First in the context that Adam should have the authority over the woman because he was not the one whom the transgression entered in through as Paul has said, no he was not the one deceived by the serpent as scripture clearly states that the serpent spoke to the woman. In the context that he ate of the fruit after seeing Eve was not dead and that she testified that her eyes indeed were open just as the serpent had said, yes he was deceived. How do I know this? Because Satan is a liar and our sinfullness and inability to end our corruption is proof of it. For God was right and we do die because the knowledge of good and evil is poison to corruptible flesh.

I really have no idea what you're talking about here.

Please seek to understand that if I were to say otherwise I would still have a guilty conscience and the blood of Christ could have no effect upon me. I could not be justified as being deceived myself and helpless in my sinful condition as Joshua said, if I now claim Adam knowingly disobeyed God with the intent of rebellion.

You're argument here is that if you were to believe that Adam was NOT deceived.. that it would result in you having a guilty conscience and Christ's blood would have no effect on you ? ? ? Why is that..? ? ? Are you implying that no man can be disobedient ?

Through semantics they only appear the opposite. You said I could rationalize away the Truth if I wanted to, as if that is what I had done. You did not acknowledge the sincere effort I have made for your benefit, to show how the contexts change the meaning of the term. You still have not addressed the clear explanation.

I appreciate your commentary although I'm sorry if I don't agree with it all the time. We're not obligated to agree with each other all the time..

As Paul is applying it no, he was not the one approached by the serpent. As you are twisting Pauls application to mean, yes he was deceived.

NO, YOU are the one saying that he WAS deceived.. when the scriptures say that he WAS NOT deceived..? Why would you accuse me of the exact thing that you're doing here..?

So let's see Eventide how you would judge if you were in charge since you are so eager to do so...

I'm so eager to what.. judge ? lol..

You have the man Adam who knowingly ate and is not deceived but wantingly and knowingly desires to distrust God and count Him untrustworthy and the woman who did not know nor want to distrust God but was beguiled into doing so.

NO again.. sorry.. I said that the man was NOT deceived.. all of the rest of this commentary is YOURS alone..

If you were God who would you put in charge over the other? By your take of Pauls words in the context you have manufactured you are saying Paul thinks the traitor should be in charge of the gullible.

I'm not God so I don't waste my time with that scenario... why do you ask.. do you place yourself in God's position as if your human capacity can relate to Him ?

I believe God was in the Garden looking for Adam. To read more into it is ignoring clear scripture and adding to what is not there to begin with.

You're talking about reading more into scripture after your commentary above..? lol..

 

[Former Christian]

I would really like to know why a person who’s not culpable (“deserving blame†Oxford Dictionary) would then be punished, and all of humanity with him.

FC

 

[childeye]

I would really like to know why a person who’s not culpable (“deserving blame” Oxford Dictionary) would then be punished, and all of humanity with him.

FC

Because he had a defiled conscience, and punished himself and everyone else unjustly in his delusion. You seem to be intelligent FC. So I invite you to be fully objective and consider the issue from both the left and right as you ponder my answer. In other words if you wish to see the center, don't just ask why someone would be punished who is not culpable, but also, why would someone who came from heaven, who was innocent, be punished for the sake of those who did the damage?

There were fifty people all standing facing each other in a perfect circle when one per chance became faint and as he caught himself he inadvertently stepped on the toe of the man to the left of him. This man in a hurry to save his toe pushed the man's leg causing the man to fall into the man to his right. Startled, the man to the right retaliated and pushed the man back causing him to hit his elbow into the man to his left. This man to the left, thinking the faint man was out to get him gave him a mighty push causing him to poke the man to his right in the eye wherein he was temporarily blinded and as he groped the air to recover, he in turn poked the guy on the right of him in the eye also. This man in an effort to get away from the ruckus to his left inadvertently stepped on the guys toe to his right and the sequence of events kept on snowballing etc...etc... etc... until the whole circle was fighting in an uproar crying for justice against the guilty. Then another man stepped into the circle who had from a better vantage seen all that had transpired. And he quickly was attacked from both sides. He however did not retaliate upon either side and as those to his left and right saw he was not retaliating, they began to feel bad about hitting him and as they stared and wondered at the man they did not quite notice they were being hit on the side opposite to them and they began to understand. They then too became like him and the reaction began to spread around the circle until finally the two to the left and right of the faint man grasped both his arms and helped him to stand.

So it is that God said,"I desire mercy and understanding not sacrifice", and He sent His Word made flesh to do His will upon Earth.

 

[smaller]

At the core the freewill premise is an expression from mankind who adhere to same to say that we can via an exercise of our individual wills cease from lawless activity.

What the adherents don't seem to get is that lawlessness within can not be eradicated by such exercises. An honest believer will simply examine their own thought streams and find lawlessness therein, and they will also find that they by an exercise of their supposed 'free' will can not stop those thoughts from entering therein, period.

Any freewill adherent claiming to do so is not only deceived, but deliriously dishonest about their own thoughts.

Freewill may indeed keep such things 'internal' and 'in check' but the exercise of will should not end there, but should be able to 'probe deeper' and to bring forth honesty about the facts of lawlessness within them...and the complete inability of the individual will to halt those thoughts.

I have found few freewillers to be that honest 'within' which to me is a testimony of how utterly dishonest that particular will can be.

smaller

 

[childeye]

Eventide;568245]Yeah I'm sure it's all just semantics in your mind.. and NOW you're telling me that I have taken Paul's words out of context.. and yet you're the one claiming that he means the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he does say.

It is semantics eventide which is the cause of your mistaken interpretation.

How about we start a thread and take a poll to see how many people would see it your way.. I'd bet you'd get maybe 1 or 2 out of a thousand that would agree with you.

I'm sure you know Truth is not up for a vote. The people chose Barrabas over Jesus and many take the wide road. Blindness is not curable but by grace.

I really have no idea what you're talking about here.

That is for certain.

You're argument here is that if you were to believe that Adam was NOT deceived.. that it would result in you having a guilty conscience and Christ's blood would have no effect on you ? ? ? Why is that..? ? ? Are you implying that no man can be disobedient ?

I cannot answer adequately for you until you can understand the two different contexts you are applying "not deceived" to.

I appreciate your commentary although I'm sorry if I don't agree with it all the time. We're not obligated to agree with each other all the time..

In faith, we in Christ must at least agree to Love our enemies.

NO, YOU are the one saying that he WAS deceived.. when the scriptures say that he WAS NOT deceived..? Why would you accuse me of the exact thing that you're doing here..?

I am saying both in two different contexts which makes all the difference so as to say he was not deceived is true in one and not the other.

I'm so eager to what.. judge ? lol..

Yes it kind of is funny. I will laugh with you.

NO again.. sorry.. I said that the man was NOT deceived.. all of the rest of this commentary is YOURS alone..

The commentary is necessary.

I'm not God so I don't waste my time with that scenario... why do you ask.. do you place yourself in God's position as if your human capacity can relate to Him ?

Yes, everytime I decide what is right or wrong, I consider the desires of God.

You're talking about reading more into scripture after your commentary above..? lol..

Once again i must laugh with you. Please pardon me for making light of our hilarious disconnects.

 

[childeye]

At the core the freewill premise is an expression from mankind who adhere to same to say that we can via an exercise of our individual wills cease from lawless activity.

What the adherents don't seem to get is that lawlessness within can not be eradicated by such exercises. An honest believer will simply examine their own thought streams and find lawlessness therein, and they will also find that they by an exercise of their supposed 'free' will can not stop those thoughts from entering therein, period.

Any freewill adherent claiming to do so is not only deceived, but deliriously dishonest about their own thoughts.

Freewill may indeed keep such things 'internal' and 'in check' but the exercise of will should not end there, but should be able to 'probe deeper' and to bring forth honesty about the facts of lawlessness within them...and the complete inability of the individual will to halt those thoughts.

I have found few freewillers to be that honest 'within' which to me is a testimony of how utterly dishonest that particular will can be.

smaller

Nice to hear from you smaller. They cannot help themselves for their misunderstanding, and as I'm sure you know, we must be patient and understanding for we are not allowed to beat the servants.

 

[smaller]

Nice to hear from you smaller. They cannot help themselves for their misunderstanding,

Perhaps we see differently? I do not mistake the child of God for the presence of lawlessness. They are two entirely different matters (and entities.)

One is UPlifted by The Word, the other condemned and decried. That's the way God set this present world within. IF believers of any ilk understood this fact and the scriptural principles deployed along these lines, we as believers would not have the petty observances/squabbles we so fruitlessly engage in.

I accept that there is a portion of 'me' that is 'not me as Gods child' unto whom 'every bad and dire Word' of scripture is directed to, and I do not deny the applicability therein to that working that "I" carry in my flesh/mind.

I may be 'free' then to the extent of being Gods child, but that does not excuse any form of lawlessness within my heart or the heart of any other person.

The Word in this way works 2 Ways and is as scripture conveys, a 2 Edged Sword, neither edge to be denied.

and as I'm sure you know, we must be patient and understanding for we are not allowed to beat the servants.

God in Christ was very patient with Peter. God in Christ was not one iota patient with Satan speaking from Peter's lips. There was the 2 Edged Living Word 'in action.' If one does not see this, they will not and can not understand scripture, nor will they ever.

Anyone who does not believe that Satan does indeed have thoughts and words coming from within them is and remains enslaved in mind.

God controls each persons schedule of 'seeing.' We are to share with Gods children these matters, and of course 'resist' the other workings within ourselves and in others, knowing the difference between these two matters.

And we should absolutely expect the arrival of the 'resistor' of these facts, as that is 'A Sign of and from God Himself.'

enjoy!

s

 

[childeye]

Perhaps we see differently? I do not mistake the child of God for the presence of lawlessness. They are two entirely different matters (and entities.)

One is UPlifted by The Word, the other condemned and decried. That's the way God set this present world within. IF believers of any ilk understood this fact and the scriptural principles deployed along these lines, we as believers would not have the petty observances/squabbles we so fruitlessly engage in.

I accept that there is a portion of 'me' that is 'not me as Gods child' unto whom 'every bad and dire Word' of scripture is directed to, and I do not deny the applicability therein to that working that "I" carry in my flesh/mind.

I may be 'free' then to the extent of being Gods child, but that does not excuse any form of lawlessness within my heart or the heart of any other person.

The Word in this way works 2 Ways and is as scripture conveys, a 2 Edged Sword, neither edge to be denied.



God in Christ was very patient with Peter. God in Christ was not one iota patient with Satan speaking from Peter's lips. There was the 2 Edged Living Word 'in action.' If one does not see this, they will not and can not understand scripture, nor will they ever.

Anyone who does not believe that Satan does indeed have thoughts and words coming from within them is and remains enslaved in mind.

God controls each persons schedule of 'seeing.' We are to share with Gods children these matters, and of course 'resist' the other workings within ourselves and in others, knowing the difference between these two matters.

And we should absolutely expect the arrival of the 'resistor' of these facts, as that is 'A Sign of and from God Himself.'

enjoy!

s

Did you read my post 453 on this thread? your comments?

 

[smaller]

Did you read my post 453 on this thread? your comments?

yes, and void of all the participants.

The supposition of free will is that it is only the will of 'man' in play when that is certainly not the scriptural case. There is also the will of Satan and the Over Riding Will of God. It is not a matter of individuals in a circle whatsoever. Every one of those individuals carries the will of what is 'not them.'

All men must be seen in this way other than God in Christ, as it is simple fact.

In this way I may view Peter and Satan, Judas and Satan, Paul and the evil present/devil with him, or every sin that man does within or without as being derived from the devils (1 John 3:8) etc etc etc.

There is a man that any of us can see with flesh eyes. There are also other 'men' which one can only see by The Light of His Words in revealing.

Therein are the differences between all of us, caused by 'men unseen.'

God deals with these 'two nations' and 'two men' entirely differently and in opposite or opposing manners.

Paul delineates this quite nicely in Romans 9 defining therein his construction of 'me' as both a vessel of honor and also an entirely different vessel of dishonor, which God presently 'tolerates' but will eventually discard to the infamous Lake.

Gods children have ZERO control over the mind/will of their respective vessels of 'dishonor' period. They, those 'vessels' do what they do regardless of any exertion of the will of the vessels of honor.

And those who do not see or know the difference will make the 'freewill' claims that they do.

That claim is not of Divine Origin, but is a lie from the vessels of dishonor who have always sought to rid themselves of Gods Divine Meddling Interferance with their wills.

God today works no differently with 'man' today than from the beginning. It's all part of His Plan, precisely delineated in 1 Cor. 15.

Men can certainly claim freedom from corruption, weakness, dishonor and mortality. I do not take such claims as being from Gods children in Truth, but from vessels of dishonor attached to their minds seeking to avoid their eventual fate.

Now, go back to your circle of people only...and what do you now see? If you still see 'just individual people' and their own respective wills, I will simply say there is another will being deployed that can do nothing but deny it's presence with them all. It's a 'common tactic' of those particular wills.

s

 

[childeye]

smaller;568329]yes, and void of all the participants.

The supposition of free will is that it is only the will of 'man' in play when that is certainly not the scriptural case. There is also the will of Satan and the Over Riding Will of God. It is not a matter of individuals in a circle whatsoever. Every one of those individuals carries the will of what is 'not them.'

Respectfully, the will of each man affects his neighbors, so the circle is applicable, and the two different spirits on display in this circle represent Godly and un godly, light and dark at work in men.

Now, go back to your circle of people only...and what do you now see? If you still see 'just individual people' and their own respective wills, I will simply say there is another will being deployed that can do nothing but deny it's presence with them all. It's a 'common tactic' of those particular wills.

My scenario, was meant for the childlike mind. Yes the will of man is under higher powers, but I like my scenario and I don't think you share my enthusiasm. What would you add or take away without destroying the simplicity?