"After the counsel of His own Will" !

[jasoncran]

I will take that to mean that you do not desire to learn about then.

No problem.

PS/ Thank you for your prayer concerning my heath. That is loving of you.

fyi i was raised a jw and they taught what i just stated. the 1000 yrs is for those that never heard the "truth" or my view the gospel. that is only for the chance to be able reject the lord.

i agree to disagree with that position of yours. besure that your position isnt a universal reconcilation view point. that isnt allowed in this forum but for the one on one debates.

 

[Alabaster]

Then that is true for all of them that when they speak not their own word but Gd's word and we do not care to diligently check the scripture to confirm it it is God's word we reject and God's word that judges us. :yes

Yes, some lack that diligence---and...?

 

[Who Says]

Wow! I just attempted to read through the entire thread as I have not been following it from the beginning (some 175 posts ago).

To be honest, I feel like I need a cigarette or an aspirin; both of which I open myself up myself to judgment. One for sinning and the other for lack of faith. HAHA!

Anyway, WhoSays - I’m trying to sincerely follow what you are saying. If you could, I would appreciate you summarize what you are saying in a paragraph; at the most two. Not from a defensive (in answering arguments) stance, but rather the theological point you are making.

I’m only asking you (to summarize) and not the others simply because they appear to argue your point (and I’m lost as to what it is). Not saying I will or won’t chime in, but it will keep me from having that cigarette or aspirin!


Be blessed, Stay blessed!

Another time perhaps. I am fatigued at the the moment. My body demands its selfish period of rest.

 

[Alabaster]

I have had God actually create dry paths for me to walk on through rain so heavy that it was as if water falls were but 5 feet away on both sides of me.

Care to call me a liar?

This is because He loves you, no more or less than anyone else who calls Him Abba. You must guard yourself against vainglory. Philippians 2:3.

It is your word that is relating it. I have no reason to call you a liar, but when God does these wonderful things for me, I consider them so intimately special and sacred and meant for me, I don't share them willy nilly. I have to be selective...wise.

 

[jasoncran]

Another time perhaps. I am fatigued at the the moment. My body demands its selfish period of rest.

i know that feeling working like i do.:bigfrown

 

[ivdavid]

I’m only asking you (to summarize) and not the others simply because they appear to argue your point (and I’m lost as to what it is).

Seemed the same way to me until I hit post#119.
I once heard someone say that one of the greatest evils postmodernism gave us is the subjectivity in language. Different people use the same words to mean different things. There is then bound to be confusion.

We could try avoiding the subjectivity in words by arriving at working definitions of terms before discussing in-depth.

What I have observed so far is that on one side,
most here define freewill[1] as - having the unrestricted ability to make a choice.
WhoSays defines freewill[2] as - having the unrestricted right to make a choice.

Funny thing is,
I define freewill[3] as - having unrestricted options to make a choice.
But forget about me for now - I only wanted to point out how people use the same term to mean quite different things.

I kind of understand where WhoSays is coming from on this specific issue - on this same forum, sometime ago, an unbeliever asked me this question -
"If God has given me freewill[2](the unrestricted right to make a choice), then why does He also find fault with me when I exercise that right?"

Do you see the problem - he thought that God had given him the right or the choice itself to choose between good and evil and then finds a contradiction when God says he will be punished if he chose evil. How then could it be a "right to choose" if God influenced towards one choice alone.

What he didn't understand was that God never gave man the freedom or right(freewill[2]) to choose between good and evil - there God commanded man to choose only good.

Just take this above statement by itself -
"God never gave man the freedom to choose between good and evil"

freewill[1] thinkers are going to take offense here in how God could not have given man the freedom(ability) to choose between good and evil.
But what was meant here is not that at all. The focus is on 'choice between good and evil'.

I think most of you would have understood the issue here but I'll also repeat it with a crude illustration -
Imagine a father walks up to his child, puts out both his hands with a toffee in either hand and asks the child to choose one. The child chooses with his ability to choose(freewill[1]), the right hand and receives that toffee. Will the father punish the child here for choosing the right hand and not the left? Absolutely not.

But what happens is that some others extend the same analogy to mean freewill[2] - For instance, the unbeliever I mentioned above imagines it the same way -
That the father walks up to his child, puts out both his hands with a toffee in the left hand and a cigarette in the right hand, and asks the child to choose one. The child chooses with his right to choose(freewill[2]), the right hand and takes the cigarette. But here, why should the father find fault with the child - the unbeliever asks?

But we know this sounds absurd - that the two analogies are not at all the same. The father would never give such a choice himself - he would command the child not to touch any cigarette - in that, the child does not have freewill[2] but the child might still find it elsewhere and may exercise his freewill[1] to take it.


So here, when WhoSays objects against freewill[2], others defend freewill[1] and so each one is offended at how the other is not conforming to a single belief. I wish the problem can now stand resolved without further strife.

 

[childeye]

We have the example of Esau in the scriptures (and of course many others)..

Esau SOLD HIS BIRTHRIGHT.. to satisfy his flesh...

God didn't do it.. Esau did.. and I can understand why God could write that He hated Esau.. because he had a birthright and he sold it.

If that's not free will then what is..

I have been away from this thread, but I would interject here. I think you misunderstand. The scripture concerning Esau is making the statement that God said the Older will serve the younger before they were born or had done anything wrong. This is a type for the Old and New Testament. The point being that all of this comes to pass according to God's will. This is not unfair as some here will presume for Esau says , in where have you loved me? and God answers in that I have loved Jacob. As we know Esau gained more through the blessing being given to Jacob since Jacob gave all the wealth he aquired through the blessing to Esau. There is now way around this. You cannot debate now what in twenty twenty hindsight has clearly come to pass according to God's plan. And scripture even validates that God did it this way so no one could claim otherwise.

 

[Who Says]

Seemed the same way to me until I hit post#119.
I once heard someone say that one of the greatest evils postmodernism gave us is the subjectivity in language. Different people use the same words to mean different things. There is then bound to be confusion.

We could try avoiding the subjectivity in words by arriving at working definitions of terms before discussing in-depth.

What I have observed so far is that on one side,
most here define freewill[1] as - having the unrestricted ability to make a choice.
WhoSays defines freewill[2] as - having the unrestricted right to make a choice.

Funny thing is,
I define freewill[3] as - having unrestricted options to make a choice.
But forget about me for now - I only wanted to point out how people use the same term to mean quite different things.

I kind of understand where WhoSays is coming from on this specific issue - on this same forum, sometime ago, an unbeliever asked me this question -
"If God has given me freewill[2](the unrestricted right to make a choice), then why does He also find fault with me when I exercise that right?"

Do you see the problem - he thought that God had given him the right or the choice itself to choose between good and evil and then finds a contradiction when God says he will be punished if he chose evil. How then could it be a "right to choose" if God influenced towards one choice alone.

What he didn't understand was that God never gave man the freedom or right(freewill[2]) to choose between good and evil - there God commanded man to choose only good.

Just take this above statement by itself -
"God never gave man the freedom to choose between good and evil"

freewill[1] thinkers are going to take offense here in how God could not have given man the freedom(ability) to choose between good and evil.
But what was meant here is not that at all. The focus is on 'choice between good and evil'.

I think most of you would have understood the issue here but I'll also repeat it with a crude illustration -
Imagine a father walks up to his child, puts out both his hands with a toffee in either hand and asks the child to choose one. The child chooses with his ability to choose(freewill[1]), the right hand and receives that toffee. Will the father punish the child here for choosing the right hand and not the left? Absolutely not.

But what happens is that some others extend the same analogy to mean freewill[2] - For instance, the unbeliever I mentioned above imagines it the same way -
That the father walks up to his child, puts out both his hands with a toffee in the left hand and a cigarette in the right hand, and asks the child to choose one. The child chooses with his right to choose(freewill[2]), the right hand and takes the cigarette. But here, why should the father find fault with the child - the unbeliever asks?

But we know this sounds absurd - that the two analogies are not at all the same. The father would never give such a choice himself - he would command the child not to touch any cigarette - in that, the child does not have freewill[2] but the child might still find it elsewhere and may exercise his freewill[1] to take it.


So here, when WhoSays objects against freewill[2], others defend freewill[1] and so each one is offended at how the other is not conforming to a single belief. I wish the problem can now stand resolved without further strife.

Superb summation. You sir are a thinker!!!

The only thing that I stress along with what you said is that we owe it out of love for unbelievers to conform our description of it within the ease of their ability to understand. That is what I keep saying Paul would have done. And it is not like we do not have other words to choose from to do that.

Wow! It was so refreshing to read your post.

The purpose of the church is to be the light to the unbeliever.

 

[Who Says]

fyi i was raised a jw and they taught what i just stated. the 1000 yrs is for those that never heard the "truth" or my view the gospel. that is only for the chance to be able reject the lord.

i agree to disagree with that position of yours. besure that your position isnt a universal reconcilation view point. that isnt allowed in this forum but for the one on one debates.

fyi i was raised a jw and they taught what i just stated. the 1000 yrs is for those that never heard the "truth" or my view the gospel. that is only for the chance to be able reject the lord.

i agree to disagree with that position of yours. Be sure that your position isn’t a universal reconciliation view point. That isn’t allowed in this forum but for the one on one debates.

I do not believe in universal salvation. Not a worry.

What I believe is that the physical temple reveals to us the pattern of how God is bringing all that comply with him through Christ back to himself in holiness.

Now let me stress because of your JW roots that I am similar in some ways to them in certain aspects of what my personal Bible research has revealed to me but I am different from them in many ways also. I because of the similarities that I discovered by my own research of the scriptures independent of JWs I took it upon myself to become very familiar with JWs teachings. So I know very well what they teach. Still, they won't accept me as a member because I am different from them in my beliefs in too many ways. And since they cannot convince me they have those parts right and I am in error, we have a stalemate.

I differ from them in that they teach only the 144,000 are in Christ. I say no one is saved apart from entering Christ. I see that they are correct that the outer Court of the Gentiles is not in Christ. But I add the word "yet" to that thought. Because during the thousand years they will enter Christ or they will suffer that second death. That to me is what the thousand years is about. It is the principal regeneration period of this earth. And that Gentile courtyard which Revelation 11 does not measure is part of the creatures waiting with earnest expectation for the revealing of the sons of God in Christ who are now being elected to rule as the governmental part of Christ's kingdom. (Romans 8:19)

Remember that the temple had at its womb the "Holiest of all" compartment which compares to the heaven where God lives and his throne of authority exists. That had what Hebrews refers to as the second curtain or veil: Hebrews 9:3 "And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all." That is the one that was rent or torn at Christ's death. But that is a second veil because there is also a veil that separates the Holy compartment from the inner courtyard of the Jews. It was called the court of the Jews only because they had charge over it. But a alter was in that inner courtyard and after an Israelite from any tribe met the ceremonial cleansing requirements he was permitted entry to that courtyard to present his offerings. And the fact that the curtain or veil separating the inner courtyard from the Holy compartment was never torn as was the second shows that only the under priests in the Holy Compartment gained direct access through Jesus to the “Holiest of all” where God dwells. The veil between the inner court and the Holy remained intact. Therefore the rest of the spiritual Israelites must go through the under priests to make their presentations to God. And of the spiritual Israelites in the inner courtyard of the Jews is where support for the priestly activities is draw toward the Gentiles. These ones act as Princes in all the earth to draw men in from that outer courtyard. This is a proselyte activity.

For now the Temple at Ephesians chapter two is being constructed upon Christ of only those who correspond to those under priests as the foundation stones (beginning with the twelve apostles of the Lamb) and then those of the inner courtyard (all spiritual Israelites by faith) are built upon them to complete that temple.

In the thousand years the emphasis turns to regeneration of those in the outer courtyard as those in the inner and in the holy have already been brought to holiness in Christ as part of the first resurrection with their salvation locked in. Revelation 20:6a “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power...”

The reason the rest of the dead do not come to life until the thousand years have ended is because they are not imputed righteousness but are judged according to their works. And the assessment as to whether they deserve life only gets concluded at the end of the thousand years so that they can be seen of God as no longer bound under sin. Grace now is tailored for those who are as first fruits able to mature quicker due to the intensity of their faith and love. But the thousand years is about those who do not ripen in the harvest so quickly. They are harvested into Christ at the end but it takes more work to get them ready. And the many that prove not to have it in them will be sent on to that second death wherein the wild beast and the false prophet already are.

That is about as quick and as short as I can summarize.

Now you know what I believe. Happy and holy is anyone now who gets into Christ NOW because those that don’t will have to be judged by their works and their cooperation with Christ government during those thousand years and go through a final testing. That is Revelation chapter 20.

 

[warhorse]

Seemed the same way to me until I hit post#119.
I once heard someone say that one of the greatest evils postmodernism gave us is the subjectivity in language. Different people use the same words to mean different things. There is then bound to be confusion.

We could try avoiding the subjectivity in words by arriving at working definitions of terms before discussing in-depth.

What I have observed so far is that on one side,
most here define freewill[1] as - having the unrestricted ability to make a choice.
WhoSays defines freewill[2] as - having the unrestricted right to make a choice.

Funny thing is,
I define freewill[3] as - having unrestricted options to make a choice.
But forget about me for now - I only wanted to point out how people use the same term to mean quite different things.

I kind of understand where WhoSays is coming from on this specific issue - on this same forum, sometime ago, an unbeliever asked me this question -
"If God has given me freewill[2](the unrestricted right to make a choice), then why does He also find fault with me when I exercise that right?"

Do you see the problem - he thought that God had given him the right or the choice itself to choose between good and evil and then finds a contradiction when God says he will be punished if he chose evil. How then could it be a "right to choose" if God influenced towards one choice alone.

What he didn't understand was that God never gave man the freedom or right(freewill[2]) to choose between good and evil - there God commanded man to choose only good.

Just take this above statement by itself -
"God never gave man the freedom to choose between good and evil"

freewill[1] thinkers are going to take offense here in how God could not have given man the freedom(ability) to choose between good and evil.
But what was meant here is not that at all. The focus is on 'choice between good and evil'.

I think most of you would have understood the issue here but I'll also repeat it with a crude illustration -
Imagine a father walks up to his child, puts out both his hands with a toffee in either hand and asks the child to choose one. The child chooses with his ability to choose(freewill[1]), the right hand and receives that toffee. Will the father punish the child here for choosing the right hand and not the left? Absolutely not.

But what happens is that some others extend the same analogy to mean freewill[2] - For instance, the unbeliever I mentioned above imagines it the same way -
That the father walks up to his child, puts out both his hands with a toffee in the left hand and a cigarette in the right hand, and asks the child to choose one. The child chooses with his right to choose(freewill[2]), the right hand and takes the cigarette. But here, why should the father find fault with the child - the unbeliever asks?

But we know this sounds absurd - that the two analogies are not at all the same. The father would never give such a choice himself - he would command the child not to touch any cigarette - in that, the child does not have freewill[2] but the child might still find it elsewhere and may exercise his freewill[1] to take it.


So here, when WhoSays objects against freewill[2], others defend freewill[1] and so each one is offended at how the other is not conforming to a single belief. I wish the problem can now stand resolved without further strife.

Wow, that was very astute, of coarse God has given us the ability to choose not the right to choose.

 

[childeye]

Seemed the same way to me until I hit post#119.
I once heard someone say that one of the greatest evils postmodernism gave us is the subjectivity in language. Different people use the same words to mean different things. There is then bound to be confusion.

We could try avoiding the subjectivity in words by arriving at working definitions of terms before discussing in-depth.

What I have observed so far is that on one side,
most here define freewill[1] as - having the unrestricted ability to make a choice.
WhoSays defines freewill[2] as - having the unrestricted right to make a choice.

Funny thing is,
I define freewill[3] as - having unrestricted options to make a choice.
But forget about me for now - I only wanted to point out how people use the same term to mean quite different things.

I kind of understand where WhoSays is coming from on this specific issue - on this same forum, sometime ago, an unbeliever asked me this question -
"If God has given me freewill[2](the unrestricted right to make a choice), then why does He also find fault with me when I exercise that right?"

Do you see the problem - he thought that God had given him the right or the choice itself to choose between good and evil and then finds a contradiction when God says he will be punished if he chose evil. How then could it be a "right to choose" if God influenced towards one choice alone.

What he didn't understand was that God never gave man the freedom or right(freewill[2]) to choose between good and evil - there God commanded man to choose only good.

Just take this above statement by itself -
"God never gave man the freedom to choose between good and evil"

freewill[1] thinkers are going to take offense here in how God could not have given man the freedom(ability) to choose between good and evil.
But what was meant here is not that at all. The focus is on 'choice between good and evil'.

I think most of you would have understood the issue here but I'll also repeat it with a crude illustration -
Imagine a father walks up to his child, puts out both his hands with a toffee in either hand and asks the child to choose one. The child chooses with his ability to choose(freewill[1]), the right hand and receives that toffee. Will the father punish the child here for choosing the right hand and not the left? Absolutely not.

But what happens is that some others extend the same analogy to mean freewill[2] - For instance, the unbeliever I mentioned above imagines it the same way -
That the father walks up to his child, puts out both his hands with a toffee in the left hand and a cigarette in the right hand, and asks the child to choose one. The child chooses with his right to choose(freewill[2]), the right hand and takes the cigarette. But here, why should the father find fault with the child - the unbeliever asks?

But we know this sounds absurd - that the two analogies are not at all the same. The father would never give such a choice himself - he would command the child not to touch any cigarette - in that, the child does not have freewill[2] but the child might still find it elsewhere and may exercise his freewill[1] to take it.


So here, when WhoSays objects against freewill[2], others defend freewill[1] and so each one is offended at how the other is not conforming to a single belief. I wish the problem can now stand resolved without further strife.

You've identified three differing "freewills", One that says we have the ability to choose, one that says we have the right to choose, and one that says there are options. All of these say we choose between good and evil. But you missed the important one. The free will that is free from being an enslaved will and will never choose evil and never ponder the choice. The absolute which properly defines these terms is God. This is how one understands scripture.

Fact: There is a Truth and He is the light. There is a lie posing as the Truth and deceiving men, holding there minds captive in darkness.

Fact: Those in darkness, who have a lie for their truth, they are the blind, but those who have the True light and see the Truth, they are the seeing. However, those who are deceived think they are the seeing and the others are the blind. Welcome to Mystery Babylon.
Note: Jesus said, I am the light the Truth and the way. He came to give sight to the blind and to make the seeing blind.
Note: Jesus said the Truth shall set you free from the slavery of sin, saying you are of your Father the devil, and his works you will do.
Consider: Jesus says the eyes are the lamp of the soul, if one's eyes are good, he will be filled with light. If one's light is darkness, how deep is that darkness. he is saying that if you see the Truth you will be filled with light, but if your truth is in reality lies, how deeply are you deceived. He says , the blind leading the blind all fall into a ditch. The Pharisees who crucified him because they don't know what they're doing said, Will you also call us blind. Jesus says, If you were blind you'd have no sin, but because you say we see, your sin remains.

The Truth is God is our light, He is our Truth and light, because He is Love. He is proving this through the Old and New Testaments.
Consider: The other freewills are a false truth based on the Old Testament belief that man can be righteous through his own ability to choose to be. God places before them life and death and a set of written ordinances they should perform so as to be righteous. As we know, we all fail and are condemned as unrighteous. The New Testament is about God writing the laws on our hearts and minds and causing us to walk in His ways, through the Newness of the Spirit and not by the Oldness of the letter. Because the letter kills but the Spirit gives life.

The freewill that chooses is the false truth of Satan in which he holds mens minds captive. He proposed it in the Garden when he said we could disobey God and live. He proposed there was a choice. And he also said that through the knowledge of good and evil we could be righteous of our own accord being able to know the ways of good and evil. Man not knowing God is their light, that Love made them righteous and not knowledge were deceived, and have been ever since. That's why there are two rightessnouses, one of works and one by grace through faith.

Consider: Abraham had two sons. One by his trying to make God's promise happen through his own efforts giving birth to Ishmael through Hagar the bondswoman. Then the promised son was born through the freewoman, Sarah, not by Abrahams efforts but by the promise of God. The Truth is man cannot choose to be good or evil, God in a man or absent in a man makes him good or evil. This is what it means to esteem God as God. This Truth brings humility, understanding, mercy and forgiveness, returns good for evil, prays for it's enemies and bears a cross saying forgive them, they know not what they do. The true term for freewill is the will that is free through knowing this. That God's wrath is revealed against those who do not esteem God as God, who hold down and suppress this Truth, that God is the light of man. Read my post, " we are divided by semantics".

 

[Who Says]

Wow, that was very astute, of coarse God has given us the ability to choose not the right to choose.

I love this illustration childeye gave on another thread:

The reason why the bible does not contain any reference to a freewill is because in the true concept of God as Spirit, as the light of man and the life of man, and man as the image of God does not allow it. It would be like the mirror thinking it is the object rather than the reflection. Such is the difference between Creator and creation. This vanity is pointed out in Romans 1.

The only reason early Fathers proposed freewill was pertaining to reasoning not desire. In other words a mans reasoning governs his actions but not his desires. For this purpose the term Godless is used.

The truth of the matter is that freedom can only be an illusion outside of God's Will.

Ponder that until it sinks in. There is no freedom outside of God's Will even possible as it would only be illusion.

Therefore choices made outside of God's Will are not freely made but they are made by enslavement to sin and its illusion.

So there is much thought perspective correction needed to be made about the whole free-will concept as it is taught. And definitely the name that speaks the lie that freedom is possible outside of God's Will ought to be disposed of. Outside of God's Will there is only enslavement to sin and sin's illusions. So one is robbed even of really being able to decide their own choice. And choosing to do bad is definitely a choice being made outside of God's will where there is no freedom truly existing.

When we stop to think about it Paul tells us this in Romans chapter 7. Then he moves on to where freedom may be found in Romans chapter 8, and that is never outside or against the Will of God, but by being led of His Will letting His Will make our choices.

Romans 7:15 "For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I."

Romans 7:17 "Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me."

So where is that freedom to decide for one's self? Outside of being led by the Spirit and letting the Spirit dictate our decisions that freedom is only illusion.

 

[montanaviking]

Well, I had a great thing to say, but when I hit submit it didn't. I don't feel like typing it all again.

Suffice it to say, that I think I agree with "who says."

The world walks in a constant state of "no" to God. Jesus said he came to save the world and not condemn it because it is already condemned. The world walks in condemnation.

Those that say that it is not fair for God to punish them doesn't really understand "free-will." God has given us the ability to choose or not choose Christ. He has not given us the right or ability to choose our consequences. You may have the right and ability to choose to smoke cigarettes, but you do not have the right or ability to choose not to get lung cancer. You may have the right or ability to jump off a cliff, but you have no right or ability to choose not to be smashed to smithereens at the bottom. What the world does not understand is that they have already jumped off the cliff and are on their way to the bottom and only by turning to Christ can they prevent the consequences of landing at the bottom.

 

[Who Says]

Well, I had a great thing to say, but when I hit submit it didn't. I don't feel like typing it all again.

Suffice it to say, that I think I agree with "who says."

The world walks in a constant state of "no" to God. Jesus said he came to save the world and not condemn it because it is already condemned. The world walks in condemnation.

Those that say that it is not fair for God to punish them doesn't really understand "free-will." God has given us the ability to choose or not choose Christ. He has not given us the right or ability to choose our consequences. You may have the right and ability to choose to smoke cigarettes, but you do not have the right or ability to choose not to get lung cancer. You may have the right or ability to jump off a cliff, but you have no right or ability to choose not to be smashed to smithereens at the bottom. What the world does not understand is that they have already jumped off the cliff and are on their way to the bottom and only by turning to Christ can they prevent the consequences of landing at the bottom.

That is an excellent appraisal. But I do want to add one small thing.

You said: "Those that say that it is not fair for God to punish them doesn't really understand "free-will." God has given us the ability to choose or not choose Christ."

Can you see that is not true? God never gave us free-will to choose not to obey Christ any more than you would give your child a knife with which to cut their throat? That the will would not be free outside of Christ as it would be a choice made as a slave of corruption? That all God is permitting us to do is repent or die? If God was giving you permission to reject Christ he would let you live to do that. But instead he tells you, "Don't reject my Son or you will die."

You have God telling us "yes" where he told us "no".

"God has given us the ability to choose or not choose Christ" = Yes, you may say no to my Son.

But he did not tell us that. He told us. "NO, YOU MAY NOT SAY NO TO MY SON."

And we need to stop telling the world that he said yes. God let's his yes mean yes and his no mean no. Your giving your son a knife for honorable use does not = your telling your son. "Yes, you may if you desire choose to use that knife to cut your throat."

It would insult you for anyone to claim you gave your son a knife with which to choose to cut his throat if he so chose to.

By the way, I have figured out that because i run my DSL Modem on a twenty minute time-out what happened to your post happens to me. When I go into my modem setting and turn the time-out off it does not happen, but then I like to turn the time out back on after done posting so as to give my modem rest when I am not using my computer.

I hate it when that happens, too. I struggle enough to think straight as it is and I think I have lost some of my best moments of thought that way.

 

[warhorse]

I love this illustration childeye gave on another thread:



The truth of the matter is that freedom can only be an illusion outside of God's Will.

Ponder that until it sinks in. There is no freedom outside of God's Will even possible as it would only be illusion.

Therefore choices made outside of God's Will are not freely made but they are made by enslavement to sin and its illusion.

So there is much thought perspective correction needed to be made about the whole free-will concept as it is taught. And definitely the name that speaks the lie that freedom is possible outside of God's Will ought to be disposed of. Outside of God's Will there is only enslavement to sin and sin's illusions. So one is robbed even of really being able to decide their own choice. And choosing to do bad is definitely a choice being made outside of God's will where there is no freedom truly existing.

When we stop to think about it Paul tells us this in Romans chapter 7. Then he moves on to where freedom may be found in Romans chapter 8, and that is never outside or against the Will of God, but by being led of His Will letting His Will make our choices.

Romans 7:15 "For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I."

Romans 7:17 "Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me."

So where is that freedom to decide for one's self? Outside of being led by the Spirit and letting the Spirit dictate our decisions that freedom is only illusion.

At salvation we surrender our will to Gods will. But those who are not saved are not bound to behave according to Gods will. That would make God responsable for che, moa, hitler, and there actions. As a (christian who was on the run for nearly 15 yrs) i assure you that God does pursue and punish those who have been saved and then run off on there own. There is indeed no liberty outside of Gods will, but he does not yet force himself on the lost world.

 

[Who Says]

At salvation we surrender our will to Gods will. But those who are not saved are not bound to behave according to Gods will. That would make God responsable for che, moa, hitler, and there actions. As a (christian who was on the run for nearly 15 yrs) i assure you that God does pursue and punish those who have been saved and then run off on there own. There is indeed no liberty outside of Gods will, but he does not yet force himself on the lost world.

Exactly, but sin does force itself on the lost world and sin does enslave it so they cannot really be said to have any freedom. Only the illusion of freedom. Paul plainly said he could not do as he chose because sin would not let him. Then he said the sin in him worked out its will as it pleased before he found the power through God's spirit to stop it.

So on either side of the fense it is something else being master over our will and our ability to choose.

Saying, "God has given us the ability to choose or not choose Christ" = Yes, you may say no to my Son.

But he did not tell us that. He told us. "NO, YOU MAY NOT SAY NO TO MY SON."

And we are most reprehensible for presenting it in such a way as to tell the world he siad, 'Yes, you may say no to my Son.'

"Kiss the Son lest he be angry and you perish from the way!!!" (Psalms 2:12) That is what he told us and that is what the world should be told by us.

 

[Who Says]

I want to use this as an example (not to embarrass you for we are all guilty of it).

Begin by asking yourself is life a right or a privilege?

IF life were a right it could not be taken away. That is simple enough to understand.

So life is a privilege. Life really belongs not to us but to God.

Now lets x-ray the comment below for its voice of appreciation that life is a gift and privilege given us of God.

This is how the world would see what the writer said, regardless of how he meant it:

Well, I had a great thing to say, but when I hit submit it didn't. I don't feel like typing it all again.

Suffice it to say, that I think I agree with "who says."

The world walks in a constant state of "no" to God. Jesus said he came to save the world and not condemn it because it is already condemned. The world walks in condemnation.

Those that say that it is not fair for God to punish them doesn't really understand "free-will." God has given us the ability to choose or not choose Christ. He has not given us the right or ability to choose our consequences. You may have the right and ability to choose to smoke cigarettes, but you do not have the right or ability to choose not to get lung cancer. You may have the right or ability to jump off a cliff, but you have no right or ability to choose not to be smashed to smithereens at the bottom. What the world does not understand is that they have already jumped off the cliff and are on their way to the bottom and only by turning to Christ can they prevent the consequences of landing at the bottom.

Comparison:

Genesis 3:4-5 "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

I know the writer probably did not mean it that way but by his straddling the fence trying to make his words pleasing has made it appear that way. And I guarrantee the world would see it that way. It plays to the sin in them and its desire to find excuse to hate God.

Such a view would be a horrid lack of appreciation that life is a precious gift and a privilege given us to share of God who owns it. For apart from him and his life imparting life to us we could not exist. That is why we are his offspring as Acts 17:28-29 says.

LIFE DOES NOT BELONG TO US. LIFE IS OUR PRIVILEGE.

It is a very subtle thing and we need to become aware of that so as to stop unknowingly saying things that unwittingly spread a lack of appreciation for life to anyone.

Maybe you don't have the right to stop me, but that is not the same as my having a right from God to treat the life he gave me that way.

I do not have such rights in comparison to God. I might have such rights in comparison to other men (though I dispute that as a violation of love of neighbor) but I most certainly have no such rights in relation to God. And neither do you.

 

[warhorse]

Exactly, but sin does force itself on the lost world and sin does enslave it so they cannot really be said to have any freedom. Only the illusion of freedom. Paul plainly said he could not do as he chose because sin would not let him. Then he said the sin in him worked out its will as it pleased before he found the power through God's spirit to stop it.

So on either side of the fense it is something else being master over our will and our ability to choose.

Saying, "God has given us the ability to choose or not choose Christ" = Yes, you may say no to my Son.

But he did not tell us that. He told us. "NO, YOU MAY NOT SAY NO TO MY SON."

And we are most reprehensible for presenting it in such a way as to tell the world he siad, 'Yes, you may say no to my Son.'

"Kiss the Son lest he be angry and you perish from the way!!!" (Psalms 2:12) That is what he told us and that is what the world should be told by us.

I would agree with that post. I think a lot of this disagreement has been a misunderstanding of your position. its like two languages that use the same words.

 

[Elijah674]

I want to use this as an example (not to embarrass you for we are all guilty of it).

Begin by asking yourself is life a right or a privilege?

IF life were a right it could not be taken away. That is simple enough to understand.

So life is a privilege. Life really belongs not to us but to God.

Now lets x-ray the comment below for its voice of appreciation that life is a gift and privilege given us of God.

This is how the world would see what the writer said, regardless of how he meant it:


I know the writer probably did not mean it that way but by his straddling the fence trying to make his words pleasing has made it appear that way. And I guarrantee the world would see it that way. It plays to the sin in them and its desire to find excuse to hate God.

Such a view would be a horrid lack of appreciation that life is a precious gift and a privilege given us to share of God who owns it. For apart from him and his life imparting life to us we could not exist. That is why we are his offspring as Acts 17:28-29 says.

LIFE DOES NOT BELONG TO US. LIFE IS OUR PRIVILEGE.

It is a very subtle thing and we need to become aware of that so as to stop unknowingly saying things that unwittingly spread a lack of appreciation for life to anyone.

Maybe you don't have the right to stop me, but that is not the same as my having a right from God to treat the life he gave me that way.

I do not have such rights in comparison to God. I might have such rights in comparison to other men (though I dispute that as a violation of love of neighbor) but I most certainly have no such rights in relation to God. And neither do you.

Some are Kind of soft on this thread also, huh? Do we have the flexability to 'think' for ourself & make 'decisions' on this or not? 'Me' THINKS SO! (and yes God Eternally has pre/know what all of these decisions would be!:yes)

Job says God hung the earth on nothing. How long did that take?

David said that God SPAKE AND IT WAS DONE! (or stood fast) And how long did that take?

Think (?) that Adam was formed of God, and that he was perfect in Their image. And not alive yet. (very good) Lets just say he was a giant in today's sight? Maybe 16' tall, & #1000 in weight, & would soon be how old when God Breathed the Breath of Life into his nostrils???

Perfectly Full grown & one day old, and with [NO MATURITY!] is as 'i' see it! Yet, how old would these Jer. 17:5 men document his age to be? (Was he a predestined 'canned brainless' robot as they?)

OK: God spoke the Earth into existence! Man brings a rock or some debris from outer space that God spake into existance, to look at? How old was it when God spake it into existence? And you are telling us that these ones know more that God does, huh? Not much different than Gen. 3:4 of satan calling God a liar with many believers of his (satan's) teaching.

--Elijah

PS: See Psalms 33:6-9 + Job 26:7! You might even understand God some in Psalms 139:15-16??
​

 

[Alabaster]

I would agree with that post. I think a lot of this disagreement has been a misunderstanding of your position. its like two languages that use the same words.

IMHO, truly it is an unnecessary mincing of words and ideas. It brings confusion needlessly.

This thread brings to mind 1 Timothy 6:4-5 NKJV
4 he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, 5 useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself.