Salvation belongs to the Lord.

[OzSpen]

Well, for the Greek fathers, it was their native tongue.
One of the details among many which eventually led to the east-west schism was the communication problem of Latin-Greek translation of correspondence. Look at the problems we have understanding one another here in an all English forum!

Yes indeed.
The consensus of the Eastern (Greek) fathers supports free will. Augustine's teaching was a digression from the norm and the reason why, in the East, he is referred to as "Blessed" Augustine rather than "Saint" Augustine. At Fuller Theological Seminary, we read Anselm of Canterbury's 11th century "Cur Deus Homo" but no mention of 4th century, Athanasuis' On the Incarnation was made. HE was mentioned as the champion of trinitarian Christianity but no mentions was made of the book which directly refutes Anselm's judicial satisfaction view of the atonement which now dominates western Christianity.

One hopes that they instructors were unfamiliar with the book.

"Happy wife - happy life."
And
"You can be right or you can be happy."

jim

Jim,

I understand the Greek fathers automatically understood the nature of Greek grammar, but how did they pass on their grammatical knowledge of the NT & LXX texts to later generations that did not understand Greek?
The satisfaction view of the atonement is that promoted by Catholocism. See Doctrine of the Atonement (Catholic Encyclopedia).

Tim Warner has an article online, 'Calvinism: Free will & the early church', in which he demonstrates that free will (quoting church fathers - with references) was the dominant view taught by the church fathers before Augustine. Augustine was the first major church father to oppose free will and that was not until the 4th-5th centuries.

Regarding the atonement, my heritage has taught the substitutionary view of the atonement rather than the satisfaction view of Anselm. Others conclude with the ransom view of the atonement.

I must admit I've only read portions of Athanasius's 'On the Incarnation of the Word'. A title such as 'On the Incarnation' does not readily suggest content that is related to a view of the atonement. Also, unless one is prepared to pursue the church fathers with care (many of them use tight reasoning that 21st century Aussies would not like reading for a bedtime piece of light reading).

Agreed that happy wife leads to happy life (in the home). It has gone exceedingly well so far, celebrating our 48th anniversary on 22 June). That will be the night of the second match of State of Origin rugby league (Qld vs NSW). The first match was last night and the Queenslanders won 6-4. It was a bit of a dour match.

Your Brissy mate,
Oz

 

[childeye]

childeye,
This is not necessarily true. Knowledge can lead people to bondage. Have you ever seen what JW, Mormon & Unitarian knowledge can do to people in binding them to ideology?

Respectfully, I hope that you would agree that knowledge of Truth is not the same thing as ideology. I would be willing to concede that I too perceive a bondage of knowledge that can be construed as negative to the composition of the will. It is when it puffs up an individual in a vain form of self-glory. Such vain-glory can even lead to the lifting up of one's self in stature through the debasing of those who are at a disadvantage. This is something that I'm sure we would all want to avoid on this forum, lest we be without compassion for others.

Having said that, I would point out in my best humility, that I am clearly quoting the Christ in this context that you are responding to. I am not engaging in ideology, nor opinion, but substantive Truth. As in 1+1=2 is True. Therefore I sincerely do appreciate the wisdom you have quoted from proverbs, even as Love rejoices with Truth.

And to that end, I am saying that it is true that there are multiple interpretations of free will. I must admit that or be dishonest. But others here do not know that, therefore they are unable to understand, that when I say that we are not self-determined in the moral/immoral purview, I am saying that there is a moral Truth that we are all subject to. Instead they can't help but hear me saying that we don't make choices.

In anticipation that you might ask why I have just not plainly said that there is a moral Truth that we are all subject to, I will answer that I wish to expose the free will definition in the dictionary as a subtle form of vanity hidden in an equivocation. I have no desire to offend.

 

[OzSpen]

Respectfully, I hope that you would agree that knowledge of Truth is not the same thing as ideology. I would be willing to concede that I too perceive a bondage of knowledge that can be construed as negative to the composition of the will. It is when it puffs up an individual in a vain form of self-glory. Such vain-glory can even lead to the lifting up of one's self in stature through the debasing of those who are at a disadvantage. This is something that I'm sure we would all want to avoid on this forum, lest we be without compassion for others.

Having said that, I would point out in my best humility, that I am clearly quoting the Christ in this context that you are responding to. I am not engaging in ideology, nor opinion, but substantive Truth. As in 1+1=2 is True. Therefore I sincerely do appreciate the wisdom you have quoted from proverbs, even as Love rejoices with Truth.

And to that end, I am saying that it is true that there are multiple interpretations of free will. I must admit that or be dishonest. But others here do not know that, therefore they are unable to understand, that when I say that we are not self-determined in the moral/immoral purview, I am saying that there is a moral Truth that we are all subject to. Instead they can't help but hear me saying that we don't make choices.

In anticipation that you might ask why I have just not plainly said that there is a moral Truth that we are all subject to, I will answer that I wish to expose the free will definition in the dictionary as a subtle form of vanity hidden in an equivocation. I have no desire to offend.

I've responded with biblical information about knowledge in #140. I have nothing much further to say. 'The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction' (Prov 1:7 ESV). However that knowledge is not the same kind as that which helps to find cures for cancer in the laboratory, which needs careful use of the empirical method.

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

the issue of men trying to pursue righteousness and not attaining it, and men not trying to pursue it, but attaining it, is quite relevant.

Context: Paul is comparing the Jews who were under the Law and Gentiles who were not under the law.
The Jews tried to be righteous by keeping the law but the law was given to teach man that it is impossible for anyone to keep all the law all the time. (Jas 2:10(RSV) For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.) The Law was to make us aware of our sinfulness.
Rom 3:20 (RSV) For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Rom 7:7b (RSV) ... if it had not been for the law, I should not have known sin. I should not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."
When the Gospel was preached to the Gentiles, it was preached with the understanding that they were not required to keep the Law of Moses.
It was always God's plan to offer salvation to the Gentiles.
Isa 66:23 (RSV) From new moon to new moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship before me, says the LORD.

If you are at odds with me and trying to establish that we are self-determined, your commentary should be focused on proving in scripture that a righteousness unto salvation is produced by our will without being subservient to Christ. 2 Corinthians 10:5.

I am not trying to establish that we are self determined.
I am saying that we have free will to respond to God's offer of the gift of eternal life by following Jesus.
I'm saying that God does not force anyone to be saved nor does He prohibit anyone from being saved.
I am also saying that it is necessary for us to do our part on the road to salvation; we have to co-operate with God.

COL 1:21-23 And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight —IF YOU CONTINUE IN YOUR FAITH, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel.

HEB 3:14 We have come to share in Christ IF WE HOLD FIRMLY TILL THE END THE CONFIDENCE WE HAD AT FIRST.

2 PE 1:5-10 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For IF YOU DO THESE THINGS, YOU WILL NEVER FALL,

Yes I agree that men can make voluntary choices, but a soul that is pure of heart volunteers differently than one that is defiled.

And a wise man chooses differently than a fool.
We have free will to choose to serve God or to serve ourselves. Those are the two choices.
Rom 2:6-10 (RSV) For (GOD) will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. here will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.

To say that we are self-determined and wise and righteous of our own devise....

Right. I wouldn't say that. God has given us free will and IF we are wise we will submit to His good and perfect will for us.

Now look at what I said above. then we who are called are nothing and it is not right to imagine ourselves self determined, but is incumbent upon us who are called, to be eternally thankful in all humility to God, for Life, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, in Christ, and it cannot be attributed to one's self. So that no flesh may glory.

That is correct.
I have not said differently. It is God who saves and gives eternal life.
But He does not force it upon anyone nor does he forcefully withhold it from anyone.
We have to "willingly" respond to His love and grace.
That doesn't mean we have achieved anything or deserve any praise for accepting His gift.
It just means that, when offered, we decided to come in, out of the rain.

It also doesn't mean that we have no part in our salvation.
Mat 28:19-20 (rsv) Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you;...
The word "observe" means to comply with, to act upon, to obey. That means we have to choose to do what Jesus says. We don't earn anything by doing it. (Luk 17:10 (RSV) So you also, when you have done all that is commanded you, say, "We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.")
But to NOT do our duty is to be cast out of the Kingdom even though we were called.
Mat 24:45-51 (rsv) Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has set over his household, to give them their food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions.
But if that wicked servant says to himself, 'My master is delayed,' and begins to beat his fellow servants, and eats and drinks with the drunken, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will punish him, and put him with the hypocrites; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.

It is our choice to be a faithful and wise servant of not.


iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

how did they pass on their grammatical knowledge of the NT & LXX texts to later generations that did not understand Greek?

They translated it into the languages of the nations where they evangelized. The Russian alphabet was created by Saints Cyril and Methodius who evangelized the Slaves and created a written language for them; the Cyrillic Alphabet.
The Gospels and Letters were very early translated into Aramaic, Syriac, Coptic, and other languages as the Gospel spread.

Augustine was the first major church father to oppose free will and that was not until the 4th-5th centuries.

Augustine was an anomaly. His views diverged from the consensus of the early church. That trajectory was followed by the Scholastics, Anselm of Canterbury and on to Calvin. It was unfortunate.

I must admit I've only read portions of Athanasius's 'On the Incarnation of the Word'. A title such as 'On the Incarnation' does not readily suggest content that is related to a view of the atonement.

It would be a very good source for you. The title indicates a study of the reason for the incarnation which was to destroy the work of the evil one.

48 years! Well done.
Evy and I had 30 and she went ahead of me 16 years ago.

jim

 

[childeye]

The Law was to make us aware of our sinfulness.
The Jews tried to be righteous by keeping the law but the law was given to teach man that it is impossible for anyone to keep all the law all the time.

Above you're saying that the law proves, that because of our sinfulness (Full of Shin), it is impossible for a man to choose righteousness all the time with his free will. Hence it appears that despite man's "free" will, he has a disability to choose his way to eternal life through the works of the law because he is full of sin.
But in post #130 you say this:
If man does not have free will to avoid sin, then man is not guilty of being full of sin.
If God does not allow man to exercise his free will and choose to do good and then punishes man for not choosing to do good then God is unjust. He is punishing an innocent man for doing not doing what is impossible for him to do

So which is it? First you say it's impossible for man to keep all of the law all of the time with his free will. But then you say if man doesn't have free will, God is unjust for punishing a man for expecting the impossible.

Why does this happen every time someone reasons upon free will? Because the term becomes an equivocation when applied to the moral immoral purview. I'm not the only one who sees it who writes on these forums. Consequently, I must be honest here and admit that free will ends in a contradiction, so it cannot be true.

I am not trying to establish that we are self determined.

Full Definition of self–determination. 1 : free choice of one's own acts or states without external compulsion.

Here is the contradiction appearing again: Your words from post #122,
"No free will means no responsibility for one's actions."

How is it that you can both claim that we are responsible for our actions, and yet also say that you are not trying to establish that we are self determined?

Either man has the ability to choose right or wrong or he is a dumb beast without intellect.

Isaiah 1:3.
3 The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider.

We have free will to choose to serve God or to serve ourselves. Those are the two choices.

First and foremost, this is a statement that is built upon the false premise, that it is possible for us to be better served by not serving God. In other words you're simply saying that a free will is one that can reasonably consider that we may be smarter than God.

Secondly, you cannot establish the presence of a free will on the existence of options. We don't will the options to be there.

We have to "willingly" respond to His love and grace.

In other words, we must be convinced by God that He is trustworthy.

It also doesn't mean that we have no part in our salvation.

If an innocent person has to die in my place to prove to me that He is trustworthy, it is not by my free will that I have been convinced.

It is our choice to be a faithful and wise servant or not.

Faith and wisdom are not choices/decisions.

These posts get too long. I would appreciate it, if you addressed the contradictions and the false premise that free will is based upon.

 

[Jim Parker]

Above you're saying that the law proves, that because of our sinfulness (Full of Shin), it is impossible for a man to choose righteousness all the time with his free will.

I'd say it's impossible since no one has ever done it.

Hence it appears that despite man's "free" will, he has a disability to choose his way to eternal life through the works of the law because he is full of sin.

True.
Remember that the law never offered eternal life. It just said that if you kept the law you would live long and prosper.
Deu 4:40 (RSV) Therefore you shall keep his statutes and his commandments, which I command you this day, that it may go well with you, and with your children after you, and that you may prolong your days in the land which the LORD your God gives you for ever.

So which is it? First you say it's impossible for man to keep all of the law all of the time with his free will. But then you say if man doesn't have free will, God is unjust for punishing a man for expecting the impossible.

Those are not mutually exclusive.
God's forgives everyone who repents and who seeks to do His will.
My point is; Calvinism teaches that man is totally depraved ( the "T" in "TULIP") and can do nothing good unless God enables him to do good.
Those whom God enables to do good He also saves based on God's "Unconditional Election." (the U in TULIP)
Calvinism then teaches that God makes Jesus' atonement limited and effective only for those HE chooses (Limited Atonement, L in TULIP) and that those HE chooses can not resist being saved. (Irresistible Grace; the I in TULIP)
Calvinism also teaches that those whom God does not elect and enable to do good, He condemns to an eternity of torture in hell fire for not doing what HE did not make possible for them to do. HE didn't allow them to do good and then punishes them for not doing good. That is not just. That's not a loving God. That's a jerk with too much authority.

First and foremost, this is a statement that is built upon the false premise, that it is possible for us to be better served by not serving God.

I didn't say that.
I said our two choices are (1) serve God, and (2) serve ourselves.
I didn't say serving ourselves would be good, bad, or indifferent. The scripture says it's a the prescription for disaster. It is the basis of every sin and all evil.

Secondly, you cannot establish the presence of a free will on the existence of options. We don't will the options to be there.

We don't have to "will" the options to be there in order to have free will.
The option to obey God or obey your own will are a given. It is the reality which God created as demonstrated by the fact that He did not make the tree of the knowledge of good and evil inaccessible. He didn't put it behind a 1000 foot tall wall so it was impossible to get to it.
He said, "Don't eat that. If you eat it you'll die." (Gen 2:17)
So, obviously, they were given the choice to obey God or not obey God. That's free will.
That's what Adam and Eve had and that's what we have today.

If an innocent person has to die in my place to prove to me that He is trustworthy, it is not by my free will that I have been convinced.

Your personal experience is not definitive for all of mankind past, present and future.
Fr. Maximillian Kolbe of Auschwitz volunteered to die in the place of a Jew who had been selected to be executed in reprisal for some offense. It didn't prove that God was trustworthy. It proved that Kolbe was a very good man.
Jesus didn't die to prove he was trustworthy.
He died to destroy the power of death and to open the way to reconciliation with God whether anyone trusted Him or not.

Faith and wisdom are not choices/decisions.

Of course they are.
I had opportunity to choose both faithfulness and wisdom during the years of my marriage when various women made it clear that they were available for (whatever.) I chose faithfulness and wisdom.
Happy wife, happy life.


iakov the fool

 

[childeye]

I'd say it's impossible since no one has ever done it.

Jesus who was born of the Holy Spirit and without sin, did keep it. Scripture clearly says it's impossible for men. Matthew 19:26. Galatians 2:16.

True.
Remember that the law never offered eternal life. It just said that if you kept the law you would live long and prosper.

You and your Vulcan philosophy.

Deu 4:40 (RSV) Therefore you shall keep his statutes and his commandments, which I command you this day, that it may go well with you, and with your children after you, and that you may prolong your days in the land which the LORD your God gives you for ever.

Matthew 19:16-17.
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Those are not mutually exclusive.

You're essentially saying that we have a free will to avoid sin, while conversely saying the law is given to prove we cannot avoid sin.
You're being shown some insight here. Just admit it, we're all sinners through Adam and not voluntarily. Romans 5:12.

I didn't say that.
I said our two choices are (1) serve God, and (2) serve ourselves.
I didn't say serving ourselves would be good, bad, or indifferent. The scripture says it's a the prescription for disaster. It is the basis of every sin and all evil.

That's doesn't change the fact that God knows what's best for us. That means that option (2) is utterly imaginary when placed next to option (1). Free will (the noun) in the moral/immoral purview, needs a lie to exist.

We don't have to "will" the options to be there in order to have free will.
The option to obey God or obey your own will are a given. It is the reality which God created as demonstrated by the fact that He did not make the tree of the knowledge of good and evil inaccessible. He didn't put it behind a 1000 foot tall wall so it was impossible to get to it.
He said, "Don't eat that. If you eat it you'll die." (Gen 2:17)
So, obviously, they were given the choice to obey God or not obey God. That's free will.
That's what Adam and Eve had and that's what we have today.

Do you actually expect me to believe that when God tells me to do something or die, He's giving me an option to disobey? This free will that you describe is sin.

Jesus didn't die to prove he was trustworthy.
He died to destroy the power of death and to open the way to reconciliation with God whether anyone trusted Him or not.

Christ accomplished many things in one act of sacrifice.The way to reconciliation begins with trust, just as enmity was through distrust. The power of the cross is the power of salvation and it is only accessible through faith/trust. The Christ inspires us to trust in Him. For no greater act of Love can be shown.

Of course they are.
I had opportunity to choose both faithfulness and wisdom during the years of my marriage when various women made it clear that they were available for (whatever.) I chose faithfulness and wisdom.
Happy wife, happy life.

That's a circumstance of faith and wisdom in action. Your Vulcan ears are showing. Faith and wisdom and knowledge is a commodity that comes from God. This is easily proven.
Proverbs 2:6
For the Lord giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.
James 2:5
Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
Ephesians 1:17
That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

 

[Jim Parker]

Jesus who was born of the Holy Spirit and without sin, did keep it.

He was also God. That makes Him unique among mankind.

You're essentially saying that we have a free will to avoid sin, while conversely saying the law is given to prove we cannot avoid sin.

I didn't say that. I said what the scripture said; that the law made us aware of sin.
Also, having free will to avoid sin does not mean that even the most saintly parson is always successful.

Do you actually expect me to believe that when God tells me to do something or die, He's giving me an option to disobey?

I never said that, either.
You seem to be having a very difficult time following what I am saying.

iakov the fool

 

[childeye]

You seem to be having a very difficult time following what I am saying.

Jim, I know what you're saying. It just ends in a contradiction. It's no big deal, we're all in God's grace. By the way, I was thinking about what you said:
Of course they are.
I had opportunity to choose both faithfulness and wisdom during the years of my marriage when various women made it clear that they were available for (whatever.) I chose faithfulness and wisdom.

So upon further reflection I would like to add, that I don't believe that faith and wisdom can be based upon how ugly a woman is.

 

[childeye]

2 Tim 2:14 Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers.

Freewill might have different definitions, but if we are arguing over the definitions instead of people seeking the Lord or not, then we missed the Issue!

Salvation belongs to the Lord, but He already went to the cross! We have to choose God, which means seek Him. Jesus said "It is finished", so while there are obstacles place in our way of seeing this it is still finished. Whether we say men do not have freewill but only a will because of the obstacles placed in their path, or whether we say men have freewill because God gave men the freedom to choose Him or not, is unimportant. What's important is that we choose Him and not the one placing the obstacles in our path because that evil one hates God.

There is a power that is the Grace of God, that is seen on the cross. And it bears the iniquity of people, and changes the will of people. Acts 26:18.

 

[K2CHRIST]

There is a power that is the Grace of God, that is seen on the cross. And it bears the iniquity of people, and changes the will of people. Acts 26:18.

Acts 26 17,18 .... I am sending you, to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.

I'm not sure how you are reading the above verse and how you are connecting that to what you wrote.

The verse was the Lord Jesus Christ speaking to Saul and telling about the purpose He had for Saul. Saul was going to be sent to the Gentiles so that they may receive forgiveness of sins!! The very fact that it is written " mean a choice needed to be made. Saul was going to tell them about Jesus Christ and the cross (the gospel) so that they might consider and choose God. The they might not and "may receive" had to be included in the instructions.

Now is there a power that is the Grace of God, or is there a powerful God who gives us grace? It seems a bit like semantics but the first implies that there is a power call the Grace of God that forces us into an action. The second implies their is a gift that we can turn down or accept.

Someone earlier on this thread wrote something like, 'God does not drag us into salvation', and I agree with that statement. I don't believe God uses a power that causes us to be saved, but rather He shows us His mercy and grace and may demonstrate HIs power to encourage us to accept His free gift of salvation. It of course is the smart thing to do, but He gives us the freedom (freewill) to make that choice or not. And the verse you provided "childeye' points to that free choice or freewill according to they way I see it.

Now Saul was sent to the Gentiles to do what? Wasn't Paul basically telling the to believe and seek Jesus Christ. And some believed him and some didn't. If Paul was using a power call "Grace", was that power just not strong enough? I don't think it was a power called "Grace" but a message of grace that required a choice to be made.

Now I believe God already knew, as the Creator with a plan, who would make the choice for salvation through Jesus Christ and receive God's forgiveness. Yet at the same time I also believe that He gave us an ability to freely choose.

Perhaps you don't think a person can freely choose because they are influenced, and some are indeed strongly influenced. I think you thoughts were worth considering, but I still have to reject it, especially as it refers to salvation. I considered that influence Satan had put on people, which is often a mighty strong influence, but can think of cases where people still choose God. In fact, I am not sure that Satan's efforts don't sometime actually tend to backfire and actually turn people to God when they become aware of the choice.

So I tell people to seek God and make a choice for Him, and often it is the person more tormented by evil that listen and choose the Lord.

Remember the crazed man with "Legion" in him. That man came running to Jesus when he saw Him. The demons called Legion certainly didn't want that, because they said "What do you have to do with us" to Jesus, as if Jesus came running to them instead of the man running to Jesus. Those demons were certainly causing the man extremely problems and clearly demonstrated more control over that man by that account of man living in among the graves, but he still choose Jesus.

Also, there were two men next to Jesus on the cross. They clearly deserved the judgment on them as indicated by the one's testimony. They had clearly fallen into the influence of evil. Yet one choose Jesus, and we don't see any conversation between Jesus and the one man until the man confessed his sins and belief.

So I don't see where I am using a power called "The Grace of God" but rather I am bringing a message that might be called "By the Grace of God". And that is not because I have not seen the power of God. The Lord has me in a healing ministry. In the last couple of weeks I have seen God grow out legs on two people through the prayers of others in ministry. Still, it is not the power, it is the message, which God confirms with power. As a result the message requires a choice which has to be freely made by each person!!!

 

[childeye]

Acts 26 17,18 .... I am sending you, to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.

I'm not sure how you are reading the above verse and how you are connecting that to what you wrote. The verse was the Lord Jesus Christ speaking to Saul and telling about the purpose He had for Saul. Saul was going to be sent to the Gentiles so that they may receive forgiveness of sins!! The very fact that it is written " mean a choice needed to be made.

I'm reading, "open their eyes", "so that they may turn from darkness to Light", "and from the dominion of Satan to God". It reads to me, that without first having their eyes opened, they cannot be turned from darkness to Light, from the dominion of Satan to the dominion of God.
Luke 11:34.

Saul was going to tell them about Jesus Christ and the cross (the gospel) so that they might consider and choose God. The they might not and "may receive" had to be included in the instructions.

One time there was this young Muslim man I met at a friends house. He was a foreigner attending school here. And when I saw him, I could see he was clearly drunk, and exceedingly drunk. He staggered and he slurred all his words. The next time I visited my friends house, there he was again, as drunk as could be just like before. So I was in the kitchen alone and he came staggering in with eyes that were dilated and without any focus. And so being moved by God, I asked him, "why is it every time I see you, you're always drunk?" And he lifted his head in my direction and without looking at me, he answered, "in America, there is too much freedom. In my country my people would never allow me to be like this". So I said, "you need to know Jesus so that you can be free without bondage of the law". And immediately upon saying that, his eyes widened because he was having an epiphany. And he grabbed his heart with both hands and he literally was tossed backwards without any control over his body. He turned over the table and chairs sending everything flying everywhere and ended up sitting on the floor with his back to the wall. And with his eyes completely clear and full of wonder, he looked up and begged me, "Please, tell me more about this Jesus".

Then there was this time I was preaching the Gospel, and the person looked me straight in the eye and said, "will you please shut up?"

 

[childeye]

I've responded with biblical information about knowledge in #140. I have nothing much further to say. 'The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction' (Prov 1:7 ESV). However that knowledge is not the same kind as that which helps to find cures for cancer in the laboratory, which needs careful use of the empirical method.

I'm not sure that I see the difference. The highest value recognizable by mankind is Love/empathy. It is even higher than life it's self. It's worth living and dying for. I think that is self-evident. When contemplating whether Love/empathy is Eternal or not, that must be a matter of faith. I think that is self evident also, since no one can ever prove that it is or isn't Eternal from a temporal existence. So all knowledge begins with which way one believes as pertains to the perpetuity of Love. For example, the desire to cure cancer is fundamentally one of Love/empathy.

 

[OzSpen]

I'm not sure that I see the difference. The highest value recognizable by mankind is Love/empathy. It is even higher than life it's self. It's worth living and dying for. I think that is self-evident. When contemplating whether Love/empathy is Eternal or not, that must be a matter of faith. I think that is self evident also, since no one can ever prove that it is or isn't Eternal from a temporal existence. So all knowledge begins with which way one believes as pertains to the perpetuity of Love. For example, the desire to cure cancer is fundamentally one of Love/empathy.

Here you are responding to what I wrote at #143. There I cited Prov 1:7 (ESV) and the fear of the Lord being the beginning of knowledge and stating that this is not directly referring to empirical experimentation to find the cure for cancer.

Now you want to link the desire to cure cancer being linked to love/empathy. I know of people in laboratory situations that have not the slightest interest in God and his knowledge and their desire to pursue a scientific career does not have to do with love/empathy but has to do with what they consider is the supremacy of human reason. There is no direction towards love but there are reasonably good $$$$ associated with such a living.

I think you are presuming too much with love/empathy in the lab. Too often they are associated with the outworking of Rom 1:18 (EV): 'For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth'.

Instead of love/empathy in the lab, it is suppression of the truth and elevation of human reason.

Oz

 

[childeye]

Here you are responding to what I wrote at #143. There I cited Prov 1:7 (ESV) and the fear of the Lord being the beginning of knowledge and stating that this is not directly referring to empirical experimentation to find the cure for cancer.

Now you want to link the desire to cure cancer being linked to love/empathy. I know of people in laboratory situations that have not the slightest interest in God and his knowledge and their desire to pursue a scientific career does not have to do with love/empathy but has to do with what they consider is the supremacy of human reason. There is no direction towards love but there are reasonably good $$$$ associated with such a living.

I think you are presuming too much with love/empathy in the lab. Too often they are associated with the outworking of Rom 1:18 (EV): 'For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth'.

Instead of love/empathy in the lab, it is suppression of the truth and elevation of human reason.

Oz

I appreciate what you're saying. Rationalism, humanism, moral relativism, atheism. I've had my share of debates with those concerning whatism. Nonetheless, they never win the arguments because they cannot deny that Love/empathy is of the highest value and that the question of whether Love/empathy/God is eternal is an issue of faith. I therefore concede that there are those who suppress the Truth.

 

[OzSpen]

I appreciate what you're saying. Rationalism, humanism, moral relativism, atheism. I've had my share of debates with those concerning whatism. Nonetheless, they never win the arguments because they cannot deny that Love/empathy is of the highest value and that the question of whether Love/empathy/God is eternal is an issue of faith. I therefore concede that there are those who suppress the Truth.

You did not respond to the content of what I wrote.

 

[childeye]

You did not respond to the content of what I wrote.

To be clear, I agreed with you. I cannot deny that money is a motivator in many fields of endeavor. Still, I remain optimistic that there are those that do their work in the service of Love. I do. The fear of God is spirit. I'm not sure that every man has it. Have I missed your intention? If so just spell it out for me.

 

[K2CHRIST]

I'm reading, "open their eyes", "so that they may turn from darkness to Light", "and from the dominion of Satan to God". It reads to me, that without first having their eyes opened, they cannot be turned from darkness to Light, from the dominion of Satan to the dominion of God.
Luke 11:34.
One time there was this young Muslim man I met at a friends house. He was a foreigner attending school here. And when I saw him, I could see he was clearly drunk, and exceedingly drunk. He staggered and he slurred all his words. The next time I visited my friends house, there he was again, as drunk as could be just like before. So I was in the kitchen alone and he came staggering in with eyes that were dilated and without any focus. And so being moved by God, I asked him, "why is it every time I see you, you're always drunk?" And he lifted his head in my direction and without looking at me, he answered, "in America, there is too much freedom. In my country my people would never allow me to be like this". So I said, "you need to know Jesus so that you can be free without bondage of the law". And immediately upon saying that, his eyes widened because he was having an epiphany. And he grabbed his heart with both hands and he literally was tossed backwards without any control over his body. He turned over the table and chairs sending everything flying everywhere and ended up sitting on the floor with his back to the wall. And with his eyes completely clear and full of wonder, he looked up and begged me, "Please, tell me more about this Jesus".

Then there was this time I was preaching the Gospel, and the person looked me straight in the eye and said, "will you please shut up?"

I like the testimony. In it we see that you told Him about Jesus. That God moved on Him. And that He made a decision to find out more about the Lord.

Now you noted that you felt moved by God to talk to Him about Jesus, and that would make sense. It especially makes sense when we consider we are asked to preach the gospel to all the world. We are moved and even commanded to preach the Word.

Now if we reference back at the verse:

Acts 26 17,18 .... I am sending you, to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.

You the Lord sent Paul to open their eyes! Like He sent you to open their eyes. This guy probably didn't or rarely heard about Jesus. You talked to him about Jesus, and the Lord confirmed His words with signs and wonders.

Mark 16:20 Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.

So your preaching opened his eyes, and Jesus confirmed it, and he made a decision to find out more.

Now you seemed to be saying that their eyes couldn't be opened unless God opened them, because of the power over them. But if that was the case Acts would have to read something like, 'I am sending you so that when I (God) opens their eyes, you will be there to preach and so that they might receive forgiveness of sins.' And in the testimony you gave the man would have to been moved on by God and the drunkenness removed before you told him about Jesus. But it happened the other way, with you telling him about Jesus then God moving on him to confirm the word.

Now there was still a decision made for Jesus and in your testimony that came after you opened his eyes and God move on him. But does that have to be the case. There is not evidence that Jesus moved on the thief next to him before the thief made a decision for Jesus. The basic knowledge of Jesus apparently was enough for the thief to consider and make a decision that saved him. And what about the man with Legion tormenting him? Jesus did go into the grave yard looking for him but rather the man came running up to Jesus asking for help. And what about Zacchaeus? He just heard about the Lord, climbed a tree because he heard about Jesus.

So I am staying with just telling people, all people, about Jesus. I believe they can make a choice for Him even if they are a thief, or demonized, or a money grabbing tax man, or even if they are a drunken Muslim man like in your story. If they can be all those things and make a decision for Jesus, then were they unable to make the decision because they didn't have free will, or simply because they didn't know all the choices they could make with their freewill? If they didn't know all the choices, that doesn't change the fact that God gave them a freewill; it only means they didn't have all the information. Which brings me to this interesting verse.

2 tim 3:15 and how from infancy you have know the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

The Scriptures, ink on paper, are able to make us wise fro salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. Now the Pharisees read the Scriptures but they didn't make a choice for Jesus, but others read the very same Scriptures and do make a choice for Jesus, and the Scriptures explain that all man have sinned, so regardless of the fact that all were under sin, some choose the Lord when given the information and some didn't. Apparently some regardless of move of the Spirit, because Jesus told those from the area He did most of His miracles that they were not going to be in heaven. So the move of God which we would think would open their eyes didn't.

Mat 11:21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

So I don't see how your testimony and the Bible match up with the idea that man may have a will but not a freewill because they are oppressed and blinded until God opens their eyes. Instead we are sent to open the eyes by preaching the Word of God, and God confirms our preaching, yet the good news can be accepted or not accepted based upon what I call a persons freewill that was given to man by God. Thus the oppression or even the miracles might influence a person but the person still has the freedom to choose God or not.

The Israelites were told that He had put in front of them both good and evil with the instructions to choose good that they might live. So they had the ability to choose even though evil was also in front of them or even though good was in front of them.

Duet 30:15See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;

But they could still turn away and not listen to God.

Duet 30:17 But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear...

So we have a choice to make despite having both good and evil in front of us!!!

 

[childeye]

So I don't see how your testimony and the Bible match up with the idea that man may have a will but not a freewill because they are oppressed and blinded until God opens their eyes. Instead we are sent to open the eyes by preaching the Word of God, and God confirms our preaching, yet the good news can be accepted or not accepted based upon what I call a persons freewill that was given to man by God.

I believe that the reason that you don't see how my testimony and the bible match up with the idea that man has a will but not a free will, is because of how you apply the term "free" in front of "will". You have been concerned with pointing to the occurrence of a decision being made so as to establish a free will. While I am not only conceding that we do make decisions, I also am addressing the actual spirit behind the word free will, which implies personal responsibility for the choice, and not just the ability to choose. The term "free", the way I perceive you are using it, serves to not recognize that there are any higher powers that move the will to do either good or evil, and therefore holds to blame the individual, whom I would see as blind and held captive. 2 Timothy 2:26, 2 Timothy 3:13. Romans 6:17, Philippians 2:13.

And therefore you say things like this: "the good news can be accepted or not accepted based upon what I call a persons freewill that was given to man by God.".... Therefore I must respectfully contest the legitimacy of this statement with the hope that you will see why, and yet not take it personally. Because I honestly do not believe that God ever gives us the will to not accept the good news, while I do believe that God gives us the will to accept the Gospel. 1 Corinthians 12:3. I cannot say that God gave us a free will to do both since I desire to draw a distinction between the power of God and the power of Satan at work in the will. Acts 26:18. 1 Peter 4:11. Consequently, the only way I could see the good news as ever being perceived as unacceptable, is for it to not be comprehended in the first place. And this is confirmed in Matthew 13:19. The ability to make choices therefore becomes irrelevant, due to this occurrence. However, If a person is dishonest, I would agree that this person refuses to see the Truth when presented with it.

As a preacher of the Gospel, I am keenly aware that the ability to choose is never what actually matters. What does matter is what things the person is believing that keeps that person blind to the Truth, and also how the Truth can then be used to expose the lie as falsehood. One needs the guidance of the Holy Spirit to even know how to search out what the lie is, and the person must be honest for the Truth to make any real change in the will. Therefore I gave you an example of the young Muslim man who believed that only through the bondage of the law can a person attain righteousness, as well as Jesus speaking about how it's all about the eye and how it sees.

I also don't believe that God gave us the will to be vain, to be dishonest, to have iniquity, to sin, or to disobey Him. Those attributes are clearly Satanic. 1 John 3:10.
Unfortunately, the evil in the wills of men, and the powers of deception that perverts the will to do evil, is obscured by the term free will, which lumps both good and evil into one's power to decide, and then concludes that God gave it to mankind. The Truth is, that Satan deceived mankind into partaking of the knowledge of good and evil.

The Israelites were told that He had put in front of them both good and evil with the instructions to choose good that they might live. So they had the ability to choose even though evil was also in front of them or even though good was in front of them.

Duet 30:15See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;

But they could still turn away and not listen to God.

Duet 30:17 But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear...

So we have a choice to make despite having both good and evil in front of us!!!

This is why I gave testimony about the Muslim man who believed in the law.
This is the Old Testament form of righteousness which empowers Satan and sin and death. 1 Corinthians 15:56. Romans 7:10. Hebrews 2:14. It implies that we can keep the letter of the law and have life, by simply choosing to do so. Hence through this belief system, it is presumed that we have a free will, and people use these scriptures in Deuteronomy, to support free will theology. Meanwhile and to the contrary, the New Testament is claiming that the law was actually given to prove that we could not keep the law by simply choosing to do so, because of our carnal nature. Therefore through the law, God condemns every man as hopeless sinners, so that any person who wants to live, has only one option, and that is to hope in God's Christ. Romans 3:19, 20. Romans 5:20, Romans 7:24, Galatians 3:24.

So as I see it, we have a choice to make about what we will believe, but it is according to how we see, life through the Old Testament carnal free will (self determinism), or life through a Spiritual empowerment in Christ. Romans 8:2.