Why I cringe when people say it's all about choice.

[childeye]

Childeye

The first Church I attended taught as you do now. And I was momentarily swayed. Until the Holy Spirit began to correct me. Our paths are obviously directly opposite. To you, the truth as you see it, is true to you. And the truth as I see it, is true to me. Is the Spirit teaching you or me? We have both adequately presented our own understanding as clearly as we could. And now that I see that clearly, I see no reason to continue this discussion. It’s your thread, so really I should leave you to propagate your truth.

FC, Pardon my saying so, but I wish you would lose this spirit that says this is my thread and I am propogating my Truth in opposition to yours and whoever else's. Consequently concluding that there is nothing to gain by discussing it. I don't dislike your views. I expressly desire that you contribute to this discussion precisely because I sincerely ponder your perspective of Truth. There is one Truth, so let's leave our carnal ego's behind and have some loving fellowship around the One Truth seen in the Christ, and that is that Love is eternal.

I have a deep background in Roman Catholicism and am well versed in the history of that communion and it's theology, which you say you lean towards. Their theology is not against what I preach however. They also say that the only true freedom is clinging to God. Hence apart from God there is no true freedom. This grasshopper has no "christian teachers" however. I am taught by God and I say that with as much humility as the boldness of honesty allows. My problems with the RCC are more about how the Pope ordered that people who do not agree with him concerning the true church were to be burned alive. It doesn't matter how well you know scripture, or how long you have carried the tradition of bread and wine. It's the doers of the word and by their fruits you will know them. One does not gather figs from a thorn bush. The claim to be the only true communion of the saints by the RCC is therefore paled over by the evidence of the brutality of the inquisition. But that is not what this thread is about.

There is a Truth FC, and I share with you from an open heart my walk with God. It is not my interpretation of it. I simply and honestly report what happened to me in the best words I know how to communicate in. I have a problem with the term freewill. You have a problem with me having a problem with it. I sincerely convey my sentiments to you even as a brother. You reciprocate by not caring about my problem, viewing it as an attempt to convince you of my theology. It's as if you are afraid to embrace me becasue you feel like you are endorsing a product being sold. I have never had any such allusions about you. Anyway I really do like you and I hope you keep writing. We really do agree, we just express it differently.

 

[childeye]

Corresponding with this mindset is futile.. (one says??)
'I have ever had about God. While I agree a man willingly Loves God and cannot Love God unwillingly, I would disagree that a man has the option not to love Him after knowing Him.'
_____

Rev. 1
[12] And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
[13] And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
....
[16] And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
[17] And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
[18] I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
[19] Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;
[20] The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in [[my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest [ARE THE SEVEN CHURCHES.]

And these ones were not Born Again with True Agapie Love??:robot That teaching
indeed does have MUCH Missing!

Rev. 2:5

[1] Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
[2] I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:
[3] And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.

[4] Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
D
('hast' what?? LEFT thy [FIRST] LOVE being DOCUMENTED THAT THEY INDEED HAD AT THE BEGINNING! Now what does Christ say??? And some of these were NOT once Born Again?? Again, 'i' smell Gen. 4:7 all over again being Eccl. 3:15 REPEATED! being brain DEAD is even a better opportunity as seen in Rev. 3:16 COLD than these ones!)

[5] [Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen], and repent, and do the [first works;] [[[or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place]]], except thou repent.

Rev. 3
[13] He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
[14] And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
[15] I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
[16] So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
[17] Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
_____

And who on this earth can READ ANOTHER'S MOTIVES!!:robot

yours truely!

Thanks for your contribution to this thread Elijah674. Once again what you offer is somewhat cryptic and it is difficult to discern exactly what you mean to get across. If I am left to guess I would say that you mean to say men can fail and that is why you support freewill adamantly.

I note you also point out what I said about men not having the option to not love God after coming to know Him. I would guess you disagree with me on that. I witness countless men and women of God who undergo fierce torture and death, starvation and poverty simply because they Love Him. All I'm saying is Love is eternal and will overcome all things while the wills of men alone do fail.

It's interesting that the scripture you provide is from the book of Revelations letters to the churches. I always noted that these letters were addressed to the angels of these churches depicting their strengths and shortcomings. I always wanted to be in that church that has an open door. To me that would be where the freewill is.

And who on this earth can READ ANOTHER'S MOTIVES!!:robot

I love your characters here. Is this your depiction of you and I with a wall between us? At any rate it is a good question. I really don't spend time guessing anybodies motives. If their motives are not pure, it is only because they do not know God. God did not reveal Himself to me so that I might Lord it over them in vanity. I believe He expects me to help them to believe in something pure. His Christ. I might ask, is it possible that you open up a little and say something that is not always fear of God? I don't mean to imply you are wrong to have a fear of God. But I am concerned that you dwell so much upon, and are disgusted by, the fealty of man. So I leave you with this scripture and thank you for your time and interest.
Luke 16


1And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
2And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward.
3Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.
4I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.
5So he called every one of his lord's debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord?
6And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty.
7Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore.
8And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. 9And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.

 

[Danus]

I’m not so much challenging anything. Just expressing my own cringing point. Just like Childeye. I’m neither a Protestant nor Roman Catholic. I’m not even a Christian being a former Christian. Nevertheless, the view I present is NOT a view that is anti-supernatural. Naturally the view I present is going to be different. I understand the Reformed view, and its implications. I once believed it myself. When people like James White, R. C. Sproul, and John MacArthur, great expounders of the reformed view, expound things relating to the Reformed view, I understand them perfectly, though I disagree.


In the view I present, individuals are initially given the revelation concerning the existence of God and the gospel of Christ, a gospel that includes the present problem of man and God’s solution to that problem. It is known from within that what is revealed is true. At least that was my experience as an Atheist. I attribute that now as the work of the Holy Spirit. This work of the Spirit, according to the words of Jesus of Nazareth, is ongoing in the world in all men. Not to just some idea of a limited elect. Then in our own free will we are offered a choice. Go on as we were or receive the free gift offered by God. We are already convinced by that which is within. So to reject the offer is to reject that which is within and become, not remain, a believer in something else in spite of revelation to the contrary. Though in practical experience it is as if one just continues as one was. If the free gift is accepted, that faith is than expressed in water baptism. That is believing into Jesus Christ, according to what is recorded in John (e.g., John 3). Simultaneously to water baptism, the one who believes is baptized into Christ (and naturally into his Body) by the Holy Spirit. That solidifies a salvation that can’t be lost because the Holy Spirit is the seal of that redemption that is in Christ. It can’t be lost because it is in Christ. It can’t be lost because of the power and love of God. The idea that the one who is in Christ is secure in Christ as far as salvation is concerned, is the only point of agreement of the view I present with Calvinism. That point of agreement being for different reasons.


In the view I present, there is a difference between a former Christian and a non-Christian. The former Christian believes that Christianity is a man-made religion and that it is denominational in character as a natural result of its nature. The former Christian does, however, still believe in the bible as the inspired Scripture given by God. The vast majority of Christians and non-Christians, see Christianity and the bible as a whole, as one unit, that stands or falls together. That philosophy, if Christianity is rejected, can only lead to Atheism, Agnosticism, or perhaps to a reconsideration of the various non-Christian religions. Or to something else. The non-Christian believes both Christianity and the bible are man derived.



Not particularly. I haven’t been very innovative in regard to free will versus whatever. I have nothing new to add to what I’ve already said. I initially posted in reaction to Childeye who said, well, you know what he said in the title of this thread. I merely cringed at his cringe. Just a stupid reaction, and I should be more in control of my illogical feelings. Illogical considering so many cringe just as he does and I’ve been experiencing the cringe for years.



Your right. The idea isn’t original with Calvin. He got it from someone else and refined it a bit with a few minor changes. But he propagated the view. And it isn’t called Calvinism even due to that. It’s called Calvinism because of his own popularity. Because so many followed the ideas he presented. John Knox (through whom Presbyterianism originated) and Anglicanism further propagated these ideas in their own time.

By the time of John Wesley, Anglicanism had already split into several factions ranging to almost Roman Catholic to very Evangelical. While Wesley would have been considered an Evangelical in his day, what he presented was not the Cramner version of Evangelicalism, which was very Calvinistic. Wesley was much more Roman Catholic. And of course we know Wesleyanism has influenced Methodism, Holiness, Pentecostalism, the Restoration Movement represented chiefly today in the Churches of Christ, Adventist groups like the Seventh day Adventists and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and no telling how many others. But as far as numbers, the majority of Protestants still hold to some form of Calvinism. How much Luther disagreed with Calvin in this area, it’s hard to say. In his writings that I’ve read, he seems to vacillate between Calvinism to an almost Wesleyan view, depending on his emphasis.

FC

I like you FC. Your an honest soul and a thinker. We need more of that here, I think.

I'm starting to get a better picture of your term "Former Christian". It's confusing, but I'm sure you know that.

Honestly I've no problems with the honest theological presentations of Catholicism, Arminianism, or the reformed view. Trouble I find often is that one will try and conquer the other, all the while misrepresenting their held view along with the one they want to label heresy.

However, I can get my head around some of what you've stated here in regard to free will. I don't think it will be of much value, but I follow the idea that our free will is bound to our nature, which is fallen. God's intervention in our lives is the only thing that changes the direction, or un-cages our will. I do not think we have a valid choice at that point to reject it, but I do think that since God can Act, not act, or wait to act, there are some who are bound to their own will within it's fallen nature to whom God has yet to act, or possibly will not act on.

Now, this is the type of thing that will cause me to be burned at the stake, but we do now that some people die without God. they die in their own will and in their own fallenness. There is biblical evidence of that. We also know that God does not always act when we want, or think he should. There is biblical evidence of that, and we know people are converted, and that those people give that credit to God; and there is biblical evidence of that.

What people struggle with is the question, I'm i saved/ However some do not struggle with that at all in knowing they are saved, and some don't care.

My salvation; how I meet God, what God has done for me, through to, to me; my relationship with God, is unique to me. there may be similarities to others, but It is still not the same. I can say God found me and I can say I was converted. I'm satified with that, but I'm not going to sit here and say, maybe he'll find you to and you'll also be chosen . That's ridiculousness, and insulting to someone earnestly seeking God. At the same time, it's also insulting and ridiculousness for someone to say that the only way to know God, find God, have a relationship with God is to seek him and try very hard to foster the relationship and be good....and/or follow these steeps and rituals.

Take Martin Luther for example. He tried very hard to be a Christian for years before he finally realized that God does not require him to be clean so to speak. I know I can leave it at that because I think you know the story.

In any case, we are to be salt and light to the world, but my salt and light is not mine, it is Gods, and for me the only way I can serve him is to allow myself to be used for his good purpose. Some might think that is a choice, but for me it's not. For me it is a privilege, and the only privilege I find truth, hope, joy, peace and love in. So I don't really have a choice....maybe because I don't want to have a choice.


....anyway, I blew through this. I got to pick up my youngest daughter at her brownie meeting held at the Camp Creek, "free will" Baptist church. ...I'm not kidding.

 

[childeye]

Now, this is the type of thing that will cause me to be burned at the stake, but we do now that some people die without God. they die in their own will and in their own fallenness. There is biblical evidence of that. We also know that God does not always act when we want, or think he should. There is biblical evidence of that, and we know people are converted, and that those people give that credit to God; and there is biblical evidence of that.

Danus, I read this and it got me thinking. When you talk about people dying without God, it is similar to what I see about the will of man. The life and light of man is God's Word or breath in us. I believe that all there is alive apart from God's word in us is the will of the flesh. So, are you saying there can be walking dead?

 

[Danus]

Danus, I read this and it got me thinking. When you talk about people dying without God, it is similar to what I see about the will of man. The life and light of man is God's Word or breath in us. I believe that all there is alive apart from God's word in us is the will of the flesh. So, are you saying there can be walking dead?

Spiritually yes.

 

[childeye]

Spiritually yes.

Then isn't a freewill to those who say a man always has one, just the will of the flesh that seeks to disobey God and the will of the spirit in us that agrees with God? I think people who believe in freewill, do so because these two seperate wills exist in a man, and they regard their freewill as a choice between the two, like somewhere in the middle. Whereas I see it as two directions on a line and life is only in one direction on that line, death in the other. To consider an option to me, is the temptation to sin, and not my sentient prerogative. I do not consider it my freewill to be flesh nor tempted is what I am saying. For if I truly could choose, I would choose to not have any temptation.

 

[Danus]

Then isn't a freewill to those who say a man always has one, just the will of the flesh that seeks to disobey God and the will of the spirit in us that agrees with God? I think people who believe in freewill, do so because these two seperate wills exist in a man, and they regard their freewill as a choice between the two, like somewhere in the middle. Whereas I see it as two directions on a line and life is only in one direction on that line, death in the other. To consider an option to me, is the temptation to sin, and not my sentient prerogative. I do not consider it my freewill to be flesh nor tempted is what I am saying. For if I truly could choose, I would choose to not have any temptation.

Now You're preaching to the choir brother Well put. We could split hairs over the concept of two wills, but I think what you have is exceptable.

I like to think of our will as having a submissive nature to some degree, like a strand of God imaged DNA, if you will. Others might say things like, a "God shaped hole" that can only be filled by the presents of God, or we are all leaky vessels that need refilling, or we are all on a path of redemption with many off shooting, or "switchback" trails that if taken lead to being lost or to destruction. ....whatever the analogy, it's impossible for me to deny God's clear and direct involvement, and the notion that we are powerless otherwise.

 

[JMJ]

You contributed another good post to this thread JMJ along with appropriate scriptures. I especially liked 1 Corinthians 3:1-4. But still we are dancing around the central point. For while some are saying we must Love God others are saying God does not force anyone to Love Him. You have descibed a measure of the Love a man has for God by keeping His commandments. While it is true one who loves God, keeps His commandments, I would say to Love God is the consequence of knowing Him. The semantics of the word freewill is a hinderance in every discussion I have ever had about God. While I agree a man willingly Loves God and cannot Love God unwillingly, I would disagree that a man has the option not to love Him after knowing Him.

Hi childeye,

It is my understanding that God does not force any person to love Him. Every person may freely choose to either love Him or he may freely choose to not love Him. But, there are consequences if a person does not freely choose to love Him. We cannot get around that fact. No person asks to be born; yet his final, eternal destination is limited to only two places; heaven or hell. Some people claim that this is unfair, but God's ways are not our ways.

In order to be approved to inherit eternal life with Him in heaven instead of being condemned to hell with Satan, a person must love God in return for His love for him. After Adam sinned and thereby made it impossible for mankind to inherit eternal life, God sent His own Son to die a terrible death in order to make amends for Adam's sin and thereby make it possible again for every person to be saved and to inherit eternal life with Him in heaven.

As I stated before, at the end of the age of mortal mankind, there will be only two destinations and these are heaven and hell. If a person does not love God, he cannot be in heaven with God. Heaven is only for those who love God. Hell is for those who reject God's love.



I respectfully disagree with your conclusion that a man does not have the option to not love Him after knowing Him.

Lucifer is not a man, but he knew God and he chose to not love Him.

Adam knew God, but he chose to disobey God's command when Eve asked him to eat the forbidden fruit. This disobedience proved that Adam preferred to please Eve rather than God. Adam denied God by his sinful work/deed.

Judas knew God (Jesus Christ) as a close friend and confidant, but he chose to betray Him. Judas denied his faith in God by his betrayal of Jesus Christ. Judas later despaired of his terrible sin and hung himself; denying the power of the Spirit of God to save him.

Peter knew God (Jesus Christ) as a close friend and confidant, but he chose to deny Him three times. Peter denied his faith in God when he denied he knew His Son Jesus Christ. He soon repented of his sin and his relationship with God was restored.

The difference between Judas and Peter is that Peter called upon the mercy of God to save him after he sinned his terrible sins, but Judas did not.

This may be difficult to understand but while God will not force a man to Love Him by beating a sense of reverance into the man, it also can be said that through the circumstances of where sin leads a man, God uses those circumstances to force a man to seek God in hope of escape from those circumstances. And upon being rescued, a thankful man also is forced to love God in acquiessence to His faithfulness and mercy. I would point out the scripture where Jesus asks the Pharisees, who loves the Master more, he who was forgiven much or he who was forgiven little?

God can and does use every opportunity available to draw persons to Him. He even orchestrates very dramatic circumstances sometimes. But, God does not force men to thank Him nor does He force them to love Him.

Luke 17:11-17 NKJV
11 Now it happened as He went to Jerusalem that He passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee. 12 Then as He entered a certain village, there met Him ten men who were lepers, who stood afar off. 13 And they lifted up their voices and said, “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!”

14 So when He saw them, He said to them, “Go, show yourselves to the priests.” And so it was that as they went, they were cleansed.

15 And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, returned, and with a loud voice glorified God, 16 and fell down on his face at His feet, giving Him thanks. And he was a Samaritan.

17 So Jesus answered and said, “Were there not ten cleansed? But where are the nine?

Nine out of ten healed lepers did not return to thank Jesus for their healing. God did not force these nine healed lepers to thank Him nor did He force them to love Him as a result of their healing by His power.



I agree with you that a person who has been forgiven much is usually more thankful than the person who needed lesser forgiveness; especially if his coattails had already caught fire due to his proximity to the fire of hell.

Jude 1:20-23 NKJV
20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. 22 And on some have compassion, making a distinction; 23 but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh.

But, a person must still continue to make the appropriate choices that will keep himself in the love of God if he desires to enter into eternal life. We do this by following the leading of the Holy Spirit who lives within us which results in our obedience to God's commands. Our obedience proves our love for God.

1 Timothy 4:16 (NKJV)
16 Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.

In Light of the fact that sin is a slavery of the will subject to carnal impulse, the big picture seems to show that God uses sin and our own lies upon which sin manifests itself, to glorify Himself. It is therefore hard to say any of this happened by a man's freewill. More likely, God's will is being brought to pass by what we refer to as our freewill, but is actually just a will subject to Light and darkness bouncing off the boundries God has laid out to serve His ends. Hissheep posted a great scripture concerning this in post #32.

Because Adam sinned, mankind is subjected to concupiscence which can manifest as desires for gratification of the flesh instead of as desires for perfection of the spiritual life within.

Galatians 5:16-17 (NKJV)
16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.

Please note that Paul states that the remedy for overcoming the evil manifestations of concupiscence is to walk in the Spirit. We walk in the Spirit when we follow His leading in obedience to God's commandments.

God does not use sin to glorify Himself and God tempts no man to sin. God permits men to be tempted in order to prove either their faithfulness or their unfaithfulness to Him.

Pertaining to your primary issue represented by scriptures such as James 2:22 and Titus 3:14; It is clear you value the term freewill for the responsibility factor involved with making sure we walk in good works. Of course I am not going to say we need not do good works. Only that the motivator is Love not freewill responsibility. Faith is the mechanics through which Love works, but Love is the cause and purpose of faith. That is why Paul says, even if I have all faith so as to move mountains, yet do not have Love, I am nothing. All the good works without Love count as nothing but self glorification, not Godly glorification. That is why freewill is not the appropriate term to inspire good works. The will needs to be motivated by faith in the Eternal Spirit of Godly Love so that it is not our wills doing it, willing love to exist that is.

I agree with you that faith without love is useless and counts for nothing with God. We can do no good works that approve us for eternal life without the grace of God working within us to do these good works; our faith in God working together with our works is what matters to God.

James 2:22 (NKJV)
22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?

Galatians 5:6 NKJV
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

We each have to freely choose to love God (keep ourselves in the love of God through obedience to His commandments) and to do the works that He has prepared for us to do if we desire to be approved to enter into eternal life after we die. Most persons will not choose to love God until death in the manner He commands in order to be approved to enter into eternal life.

Please give thought to what I have shared regarding my thoughts on this, and ponder what my motives are on this thread. Am I trying to argue so that I can prove my knowledge of God is greater than others? Or do I wish people to see that the term freewill is an inhibitor to seeing how much we are completely dependent upon God? For this to me is how we Love God and worship Him in Truth and Spirit.

As you can see, I have given considerable thought to your post.

I agree that we are dependent upon God's grace in order to be saved. Without His grace, we can not be saved and we cannot inherit eternal life.

However, we must work with His Grace who is the Holy Spirit who lives within us, to do the good works that God has prepared for us to do in obedience to the royal law, and thereby keep ourselves in the love of God if we desire to enter into eternal life.

Royal Law:

Luke 10:25-28 NKJV
25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?”

27 So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’”

28 And He said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.”

If we do this, we, too, shall inherit eternal life.

James 2:24 NKJV
You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

 

[childeye]

Hi childeye,

It is my understanding that God does not force any person to love Him. Every person may freely choose to either love Him or he may freely choose to not love Him. But, there are consequences if a person does not freely choose to love Him. We cannot get around that fact.

My compliments on a well ordered and thoughtful post. You remind me of a Roman Catholic theologian I know. There is much I would comment upon and it is always semantics that confound the discussion. What do you mean by force compared to what I mean? Then there are words such as coerce and how they apply to fear of hell, hope of heaven, lust of the flesh, the powers of deception, of revelation, and the power of Love. The same word 'free' spoken from darkness means it's opposite 'slavery' when spoken from the Light. Amidst all of this, I struggle to see anything resembling what a freewill implies.

But more important to me is the spirits that reside in one's self derived from the implications that come depending upon what you believe to be true. For example, scripture says the children of God and of the devil are made manifest in those that sin and those that do not. Such a scripture does not imply a freewill that can do either or, but rather wills whose moral behavior is superceded by the spirit that resides in the person. Consequently, if I believe that I have a freewill, I by default must disregard a scripture that otherwise would compel me to desire to be born of the Spirit of God so as to not be a child of Satan.

In order to be approved to inherit eternal life with Him in heaven instead of being condemned to hell with Satan, a person must love God in return for His love for him. After Adam sinned and thereby made it impossible for mankind to inherit eternal life, God sent His own Son to die a terrible death in order to make amends for Adam's sin and thereby make it possible again for every person to be saved and to inherit eternal life with Him in heaven.

Some questions here. Wouldn't any butt kisser choose to love God to save his own neck? This prompts the question of do they truly love God at all even though they insist on complying with keeping His commandments? The Pharisees were of this sort. Also, wouldn't it be unscrupulous to accept the death of an innocent for my sins, "if" my sins were done by a free choice?

You use the word "approved" of God. If I believe in freewill, then God is testing whether I will freely Love him or freely not. I see in Job God testing man only to
prove Satan wrong, and we see Satan in heaven depicted as the accuser of the brethren. Abraham was tested with being asked to sacrifice his son Isaac. Did God not already know that Abraham would do as God asked? Testing and proving are two distinct meanings, as different as doubt and faith. It is hard to imagine that Abraham would have a freewill to Love God or not as to his discretion. Otherwise the testing would prove nothing, since the next day Abraham may freely choose to not Love God. Anyone could be faithful one second and unfaithful the next. This hardly promotes those spirits that are believing Love is Eternal and likewise life eternal. How would you reconcile this disparity?

I respectfully disagree with your conclusion that a man does not have the option to not love Him after knowing Him.

Your examples of knowing God are not what I mean by knowing God. For instance, although Adam knew God even as he knew himself, he lacked confidence in what he knew and therefore was malleable. Had Adam known God appropriately and confidently, he would also know God was incapable of lying to him. Nor would Adam have believed anyone knew better than God what was best for Adam. Satan did not know God since we see in Job he also thinks he knows better than God. Judas had Satan enter into him. And Peter, despite his own claims that he would die for Jesus, denied him to save himself. Yet later only after receiving the Holy Spirit was he with certaintt willing to die for Jesus and proved that. All of these instances show that the knowledge of God is about having the knowledge of His Person and Character, to a point where one Loves God so much, he is willing to die for Him, even as Jesus was willing to die for us.

But, God does not force men to thank Him nor does He force them to love Him.

So nine out of ten did not thank God. I always took this scripture to mean that we too easily take what God gives us for granted. I am coming to that conclusion by not believing in freewill. I am looking at the causality of why one man is thankful and nine are not. If freewill is applicable, you would think with equal chance five out of ten would be thankful. Appreciation is more about putting yourself in God's shoes, if He has any. God may be the least loved yet He created everything. It's not that men have freewil, they lack a proper esteem of God.

But, a person must still continue to make the appropriate choices that will keep himself in the love of God if he desires to enter into eternal life. We do this by following the leading of the Holy Spirit who lives within us which results in our obedience to God's commands. Our obedience proves our love for God.

I agree with you of course. You are speaking of perservering in what God has begun and I am not at liberty to say He is not what upholds. These are words spoken for the sake of our weakness as flesh beings. It is said that all men did not esteem God as God. To me to perservere, is to not say I have a freewill to remember to Love God, but that God is who gave me the cause to Love Him by dying for me. If I believed in a freewil, it would be one where I would choose to never forget but rather learn how to appreciate it as deeply as possible. I would not believe in a freewill that would have the option to take it or leave it.

We each have to freely choose to love God (keep ourselves in the love of God through obedience to His commandments) and to do the works that He has prepared for us to do if we desire to be approved to enter into eternal life after we die. Most persons will not choose to love God until death in the manner He commands in order to be approved to enter into eternal life.

I appreciate your description of what you mean by Loving God. It is a freewill point of view. Subsequently, you will probably consider my view more about hearts and flowers and not to be equated with obedience. So also do you consider the discussion about faith and works to be relevant unto that end.

When I say God forces me to Love Him, I am saying His Glory causes my knees to bend. He is awesome to behold rather than I choose to behold Him as awesome. So which came first, the Love of God or the keeping of ordinances?

As you can see, I have given considerable thought to your post.


If we do this, we, too, shall inherit eternal life.

James 2:24 NKJV
You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

You have given much thought to my post. You are most equitable in your discernment and understanding. You are big on obedience which of course is a necessity. I am big on what makes a person obedient and what makes a person disobedient.

Some will say it is our prerogative after having the clear choice between right and wrong placed before us to choose. That's fine, but I am simply saying that the path one chooses is predetermined by the spirit residing in the person choosing, whether it be of God or of the devil. Those with Godly love will not consider the path of sin as a viable option because they have the Spirit of Christ. Hence scripture says this:
1 John 3:8-10
King James Version (KJV)

8He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

9Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 10In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

This is why morality is a spiritual issue that suprecedes the will of a person when discussing moral behavior. I don't see how having options matters when it is the spirit residing in the person that actually determines the direction one chooses. Moreover, in my reasoning I find that the prospect of a freewill that can choose either way is in conflict with the above scripture along with many others.

 

[HisSheep]

Great Job Childeye.

He aren't forced; we are made willing. ...He works in us to will.

Consider that the Hellbound don't WANT God.

They wouldn't ENJOY Heaven. There's nothing there for them.

People who don't enjoy church won't enjoy Heaven.

They can't just CHOOSE to enjoy it. They must be COMPELLED...

Like the parable says:

And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled. (Luke 14:23)

How clearly I remember being unregenerate. I hated God. He converted me.

-HisSheep

 

[Danus]

Great Job Childeye.

He aren't forced; we are made willing. ...He works in us to will.

Consider that the Hellbound don't WANT God.

They wouldn't ENJOY Heaven. There's nothing there for them.

People who don't enjoy church won't enjoy Heaven.

They can't just CHOOSE to enjoy it. They must be COMPELLED...

Like the parable says:

And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled. (Luke 14:23)

How clearly I remember being unregenerate. I hated God. He converted me.

-HisSheep

Agree. Saying we have a choice is like me saying I have a choice to love my kids or my wife. I LOVE THEM. That's not a choice. I love them. I can't "decide" not to love them. Even if I tried.

 

[Eventide]

Those with Godly love will not consider the path of sin as a viable option because they have the Spirit of Christ. Hence scripture says this:
1 John 3:8-10
King James Version (KJV)

8He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

9Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 10In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

This is why morality is a spiritual issue that suprecedes the will of a person when discussing moral behavior. I don't see how having options matters when it is the spirit residing in the person that actually determines the direction one chooses. Moreover, in my reasoning I find that the prospect of a freewill that can choose either way is in conflict with the above scripture along with many others.

So, are you saying that you don't sin because you have the Spirit of Christ in you ?

If that's not what you're saying, then why do you sin if the Spirit of Christ is in you ?

 

[Danus]

So, are you saying that you don't sin because you have the Spirit of Christ in you ?

I believe he said, "Those with Godly love will not consider the path of sin as a viable option because they have the Spirit of Christ."

"Consider" speaks of choice. He's trying to convey that the "choice" aspect is not a leading force in the matter. "should I sin today or should I not sin today? Let's see God would not like it, but I would so what to do? ......That's not an issue, that's not a question to ponder for the saved in Christ.

That's not to say that the saved in Christ don't sin. They sin by the very own nature, but it's the holly spirit that that guides us to redemption, not ourselves. That's the point. That's not a choice as much as it is a submission of will.

No one wills the holly spirit of God. The spirit will act, wait, or not act, but that is of God, and not of man.

 

[Eventide]

I believe he said, "Those with Godly love will not consider the path of sin as a viable option because they have the Spirit of Christ."

"Consider" speaks of choice. He's trying to convey that the "choice" aspect is not a leading force in the matter. "should I sin today or should I not sin today? Let's see God would not like it, but I would so what to do? ......That's not an issue, that's not a question to ponder for the saved in Christ.

I disagree.. it's ALWAYS an issue because the flesh is always at enmity with the Spirit.. and the problem is exactly as Paul says in Romans 7.. 'to WILL is present with me'...

That's not to say that the saved in Christ don't sin. They sin by the very own nature, but it's the holly spirit that that guides us to redemption, not ourselves. That's the point. That's not a choice as much as it is a submission of will.

And our will is not always aligned with His will.. once again, the flesh and the Spirit are {always} contrary to one another.. my old man isn't getting any better and Christ in me can't get any better.

No one wills the holly spirit of God. The spirit will act, wait, or not act, but that is of God, and not of man.

I don't believe I, or any other person has said otherwise.

 

[childeye]

So, are you saying that you don't sin because you have the Spirit of Christ in you ?

If that's not what you're saying, then why do you sin if the Spirit of Christ is in you ?

Hi Eventide, your forthrightness here. Glad to hear from you. I think Danus did well in reiterating the point I was making. For Danus skillfully pointed out the subtle nuances between making a choice and the spirit behind the will that chooses. And how the term "freewill" causes the mind to ignore the spiritual aspect behind moral behavior by focusing only on the fact a choice is being made. And Hissheep said better than I that God does not force, He makes us willing and causes us to will to do good.

We are probably all familiar with Saved by grace and his bold assertions that freewill is a lie from Satan. Freewill is very reminiscent of the choice proposed in the garden of Eden where the power of choice between right and wrong were thought to be gained by the eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. There too a semblance of freedom was implied through the gaining of a certain wisdom that was forbidden by God and promoted by Satan.

Ironically, the scripture I provided in post #1 is speaking about how through a certain wisdom men did not know God, and how the Gospel of Christ is a foolish means through which God has chosen the lowly things so as to make foolish such a worldly type of wisdom.

Consequently, I am hoping you, and all others address the issue blantantly put forth on this thread. I would respectfully ask that you in all honesty put your best foot forward and with a fair and open mind consider the implications seriously in a sincere fear of God and in solemn recognition of the price paid for our redemption.

I know you hate Calvinism, so let it be known I am not interested in supporting or denying Calvinism or Arminianism. I am interested in establishing where our responsibilities lie. How much do we mitigate a man's complicity in sin if at all, and to understand the source of the problem so as to eliminate the vanity whereupon God's wrath is kindled and His Glory desecrated. Saying we made a choice, just doesn't cut it.

 

[childeye]

So, are you saying that you don't sin because you have the Spirit of Christ in you ?

If that's not what you're saying, then why do you sin if the Spirit of Christ is in you ?

Now to answer your question directly. Yes I am saying that I don't sin when I have the Spirit of Christ in me. Please note the caveat "when". No doubt this is a cop out in your view. But scripture details that there are ways to pollute the Spirit of Christ, and some uncleaness may be temporary according to the Old Testament.

Sin is a relative term, and what is sin to one man may not be sin to another. To one man, it is okay to look upon a womans leg from the knee down and there is no lust present. But to another man, the woman must be covered head to toe. One may drink or eat and another may not. Jesus said to the Pharisees, would you were blind, you would have no sin but because you say we see, your sin remains. Note he said "we" see, as in speaking for everyone, so as to condemn. Consequently, sin is relative and indicative of a defiled conscience.

The evil is present with Paul and sin present in the temptations of the flesh, but Paul says it is not him that sins. Sin does die is my testimony, even as the flesh is crucified with Christ. It did not happen overnight in my case, nor am I ever sure that I don't yet have sin since I have not sold everything I own and given the money to the poor. But I know people with terrible sinfulness, that in their case it did happen overnight regarding their particular sin.

The fears are the same for all of us. Is Christ in me or I in him, because I am still yet sinning? Yet a defiled conscience could find sin in anything. I personally believe when we hold others accountable for their sin, sin gains power in us. For example, when I was jealous because my wife looked in the direction of another man, it was my own insecurity based on my own doubts about my fidelity. That's why, to those who have no such fears regarding that particular sin, I am naked to them and my fault obvious. When God showed me where my weakness came from, I was able to love my wife regardless if she was out looking at other men or not. Then also did temptation cease in me, for I saw that Love was able to exist despite sin, for Love is greater than me, and I am so relieved it is. So the power of sin exists upon a lie, and that lie is that Love is earned or merited. That is why this thread is about God choosing lowly men, and not men choosing God so that God alone is glorified and vanity defeated.

 

[Danus]

And our will is not always aligned with His will.. once again, the flesh and the Spirit are {always} contrary to one another.. my old man isn't getting any better and Christ in me can't get any better.

I agree that our will does not get any better. Our will is not in line with God's will, it's in the way. Anyone trying to make their will better is living in their will and not in the will of God. However, one can make all the choices one wants in their own will, but that''s only spinning their "WILLS" wheels .

It's God's will that does anything, and again he can act, wait, or do nothing.

 

[Eventide]

childeye... you said quite a bit while managing to completely avoid the simple and direct question posed to you..

Why do you sin if the Spirit of Christ is in you ? (assuming you admit that you do sin)..

 

[Eventide]

I agree that our will does not get any better. Our will is not in line with God's will, it's in the way. Anyone trying to make their will better is living in their will and not in the will of God. However, one can make all the choices one wants in their own will, but that''s only spinning their "WILLS" wheels .

It's God's will that does anything, and again he can act, wait, or do nothing.

So perhaps you're missing the point of my simple question.. why do people sin if they hve the Spirit of Christ in them ?

 

[childeye]

childeye... you said quite a bit while managing to completely avoid the simple and direct question posed to you..

Why do you sin if the Spirit of Christ is in you ? (assuming you admit that you do sin)..

I did answer your question. I pointed out that sin is relative. So to answer the question we must first define sin. I don't say I don't sin nor do I say I sin since it is depending upon one's measure of sin. To a defiled conscience anything can be sin. Or as Jesus put it, to the unpure of heart nothing is pure, but to the pure of heart all things are pure. Also, whatever measure of judgment you use to judge others, will be the same measure used against you. Consequently, it is relative.

With that in mind, I don't sin since I don't condemn others in Christ for that which I do. I have not sold everything I own and given it to the poor, but I don't see others who have not done so as sinners. Still, I do give of what I have and share with those who have less than me, without going to the extreme of being homeless. Love others as I would want to be loved. I would not want someone to give up their home and all possesions just to feed me, but if I were starving and they could spare some food I would be grateful. God will judge our hypocrisy in the end.