Faith without works........is Faith.

[childeye]

That's still a free will. Even if it has to operate within the greater will of God, or the devil.

Sorry, but you're really just saying that because we choose, the will is free. Here is the definition of free will. If we go by the below definition, none of the freewills you have described so far would qualify.

free will
noun
noun: free will; noun: freewill

1. 1.
   the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
   synonyms: self-determination, freedom of choice, autonomy, liberty, independence

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Sorry, but you're really just saying that because we choose, the will is free. Here is the definition of free will. If we go by the below definition, none of the freewills you have described so far would qualify.

free will
noun
noun: free will; noun: freewill

1. 1.
   the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
   synonyms: self-determination, freedom of choice, autonomy, liberty, independence

Where did you get this definition? Everybody knows freewill means the freedom to choose. The reason one would choose one way or the other hardly defines if you have the fundamental freedom to make a choice. Potential consequence does not define free choice. If I choose not to stick my hand in a fire (for obvious reasons) that does not mean I do not have the freedom to do that.

 

[childeye]

I pointed out that it is God who brings us to the place of decision where we do indeed have the freedom of choice to choose who we will surrender our will to.

You're talking about the Gospel right? Isn't the Gospel saying that we're all unrighteous apart from God, and are not free in our wills to be righteous out of our own volition? Hence we need a savior and a rebirth of the Spirit of God.? 1 John 5:11.

10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son." (1 John 5:10 NASB)

I see an abundance of free will choice here. Not a freedom of choice we have by nature, but one that God grants to us when we hear the testimony of the Holy Spirit concerning Jesus Christ. Believing is a freedom of choice that we are given the opportunity to exercise. And depending on how we choose we will then come into the slavery of either God or the prince of the air.

Now you're saying freewill is both believing and yet not believing, that's an equivocation since we can't both believe and not believe at the same time. Respectfully, believing comes before choosing Christ. It's the power of the cross that inspires faith, just as true worship is drawn out by the object of worship. Therefore some can believe and some cannot. 1 Corinthians 1:18.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Now you're saying freewill is both believing and yet not believing, that's an equivocation since we can't both believe and not believe at the same time.

I'm saying freewill is the place where you can decide to believe, or not believe. Just because you can only choose one doesn't mean you don't have the freedom to do either. The gospel gives us back the freedom to choose. It's a legitimate freedom of choice that God grants. But you will become the slave to the one that you choose to follow. We choose who we will be in slavery to. (Romans 6:16 NASB). That hardly means we don't have freewill to decide who we will be in slavery to.

 

[childeye]

Where did you get this definition? Everybody knows freewill means the freedom to choose.

Freedom to choose is fine so long as it qualifies as freedom to choose. A freewill choice means a voluntary choice. Hence any choice made out of necessity or constrained by fate or divine force would not qualify as voluntary.

The reason one would choose one way or the other hardly defines if you have the fundamental freedom to make a choice.

Indeed it absolutely does. Otherwise we're conflating choice/option with choice/decision. The choice/option isn't applicable to the will.

Potential consequence does not define free choice.

That's hard to comprehend. I still think you're conflating choice /option with choice/decision to be able to make this plausible.

If I choose not to stick my hand in a fire (for obvious reasons) that does not mean I do not have the freedom to do that.

The body is hardwired to avoid pain. You can't choose to enjoy being burned.

 

[dadof10]

Yes, if we sin willfiully, as in go on sinning after hearing the Truth. You have already said you don't want to sin, but now you seem to want to say that you can want to sin if you so choose, which is a contradiction I have already pointed out.

Maybe I'm just not being clear enough. I want to obey God, yet Satan makes sin look SSSOOOOO good that I freely choose it over God. Not as a lifestyle, but during different times in my life. You are right on a lot of your points concerning tempting and repentance (which assumes humility, BTW). Where you are wrong is when you say it's your sin nature that does the actual sinning, not you. You won't deny it, but you won't come right out and admit it either. Maybe because it's a direct contradiction of (1Jn1:8) "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us."?

This scripture is not saying that we never sin unwillingly just because it says if we sin willfully. Why would Paul say if we sin willingly, unless he is making a distinction between willingly and unwillingly? If all sin is done willingly, then he would not say if.

The distinction is not between "willingly" and "unwillingly", it's between "willfully sinning" and NOT willfully sinning. "Unwilling sin" is not even mentioned here (or anywhere else). Look at the context.

"19 Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way
which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God,
22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water."

He, and his audience "enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way". They are no longer, at this moment in time living the old way. They are, by anyone's definition, saved people. Yet he still says:

"Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful; 24 and let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near."

Obviously there has to be a chance of them "wavering" in their confession (probably due to persecution), not just Satan wavering through them. Then, speaking of saved people who are filled with God's Holy Spirit, he says:

"For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth..."

These people have entered "the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus", they "have a great priest over the house of God", they are living "by the new and living way", and they have received "the knowledge of the truth" yet there is still a chance they will waver and that they will deliberately sin. These verses directly contradict your view that after conversion we can't "willfully sin".

That's all I have time for now...

 

[childeye]

I'm saying freewill is the place where you can decide to believe, or not believe. Just because you can only choose one doesn't mean you don't have the freedom to do either.

Yes I understand that's what you're saying, but it makes no sense. Freewill is now a place? I mean what exactly is this place or moment in time where I can either decide to believe or not believe? Has freewill now come to mean uncertainty? I know I don't have the freedom to believe Jesus is a fool, I don't think I ever have. When you describe that place where you can decide to believe or not believe, I think you're talking about when the Gospel is presented and the holy Spirit is present. I think you're trying to say this place is where freewill is exercised. To me, all you're really doing is asserting freewill because we are going to have to choose. I still think we're persuaded by the power of the cross, at this place of decision. I think it is divine force that is the Word of God in me that recognizes the Word of God come in the flesh. Therefore I believe.

The gospel gives us back the freedom to choose.

Okay, but then we were saves to sin prior to that and without any freedom to choose, right?

It's a legitimate freedom of choice that God grants.

So what do you make of these scriptures? Don't they say God is doing the choosing? Matthew 13:47. 1 Corinthians 1:27.

(Romans 6:16 NASB). That hardly means we don't have freewill to decide who we will be in slavery to

Here's the problem. I'm not going to testify that I chose of my own freewill even because I don't recall ever making that decision. I was convinced by the Truth of God. I believe to think I decided, is to take credit for the decision. When I read scripture the whole point of God choosing the lowly to reveal Himself to, is so that no man could glory over another. And I Love that. I believe it keeps me from being self righteous.

Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

1 Corinthians 1:28-31.
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

 

[childeye]

Maybe I'm just not being clear enough. I want to obey God, yet Satan makes sin look SSSOOOOO good that I freely choose it over God. Not as a lifestyle, but during different times in my life.

To me you're describing the weakness of the flesh. Or as elsewhere Paul describes it, as our infirmity. 2 Corinthians 12:9. Your description is no different to me than this. Romans 7:18,18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

Where you are wrong is when you say it's your sin nature that does the actual sinning, not you. You won't deny it, but you won't come right out and admit it either. Maybe because it's a direct contradiction of (1Jn1:8) "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us."?

No, it's because there are degrees of change when coming out of the carnal mindset into the renewed spiritual mindset. There is the carnal will and the spiritual will, just as Paul points out above in Romans 7:18. Which will do I identify with? Just like us, Paul wants to do what is good but yet sin has dominion against his own will. Therefore he says: 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. Am I reading this right? Sounds to me like Paul says the same thing I do. The sin is in me, but it's not me who does it. You're essentially saying the same thing, you're just to into "taking responsibility" to admit it.

These people have entered "the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus", they "have a great priest over the house of God", they are living "by the new and living way", and they have received "the knowledge of the truth" yet there is still a chance they will waver and that they will deliberately sin. These verses directly contradict your view that after conversion we can't "willfully sin".

That's a pretty confident statement all built around IF. However I appreciate Paul's concern. To be clear, I only said I don't believe that anyone who deliberately volunteers to hurt others, is believing in the Christ who submits to a cross of suffering at the hands of his enemies, prays for his enemies and returns good for evil. I'm pretty confident about that. I never said that a person can't depart from the faith or that there aren't degrees of faith or weak faith. I only said we don't have freewill, in the moral purview. And that means we can't be good without God/Christ/Holy Spirit/Love/empathy. Show me that we can choose to be good apart from God/Love, and I'll believe in freewill.

 

[dadof10]

To me you're describing the weakness of the flesh. Or as elsewhere Paul describes it, as our infirmity. 2 Corinthians 12:9. Your description is no different to me than this. Romans 7:18,18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

I am describing "weakness of the flesh", but not as Paul describes it in Romans 7. In context, that is concerning the Mosaic law due to the fact there were "Judiazers" trying to push a "you must be circumcised to be saved" doctrine. Romans, and most of Paul's letters, are reactions to these people. Those that believe as you do usually bring up these often misinterpreted verses as "proof texts". They are not.

No, it's because there are degrees of change when coming out of the carnal mindset into the renewed spiritual mindset.

Lol...Yes, because there is no mention of "degrees of change" in Hebrews 10. The author of Hebrews (Paul?) and his audience are not in the process of getting into the "spiritual mindset", they are there, as Scripture says. Wouldn't you consider yourself as having a "renewed spiritual mindset"? And Paul just wasn't there yet when he wrote Hebrews? Really...

There is the carnal will and the spiritual will, just as Paul points out above in Romans 7:18. Which will do I identify with? Just like us, Paul wants to do what is good but yet sin has dominion against his own will. Therefore he says: 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. Am I reading this right? Sounds to me like Paul says the same thing I do. The sin is in me, but it's not me who does it. You're essentially saying the same thing, you're just to into "taking responsibility" to admit it.

The only thing I'm "to into", Childeye, is rightly dividing the Word. Does Romans 7 agree with you? Let's see.

12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good. 13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, working death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.
"14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin."

Is he speaking as a believer in Christ here? I don't think so. He is speaking as a Jew, and setting up what follows.

"15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good."

How could he be speaking as a believer here? He needs the law to point out sin? As a Christian?

17 So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. 21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, 23 but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members.

The law can save no one, because it can only point out the depravity of man. This is what the law did, pointed out the sin within man, and even though the Jew WANTED to uphold the law, he couldn't. All these laws...It's hopeless...

24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin."

Again, he can't possibly be speaking as a Christian? He OF HIMSELF "is serving the law of God" with his mind. Did he preach that Christians OF THEMSELVES "serve the law of God", or does he condemn this kind of thinking throughout his letters as "works"? Therefore, he is still speaking as a Jew. So, what can possibly save him from this wretchedness...

1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Ahhh...there is an answer to his dilemma, and it isn't through the Mosaic law. Now he is speaking as a Christian

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death.

He has been set free from the law. "Now" he is speaking as a Christian, contrasting the "law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" with what he was talking about before, "the law of sin and death", the Mosaic law.

3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Jesus is the one who can deliver us from the condemnation of the Mosaic law, with all it's ordinances. You are plucking out a few verses meant to be part of a broader point, and constructing doctrine out of them. This isn't exegesis...

That's a pretty confident statement all built around IF.

It wasn't built around "if", it was built around proper Biblical exegesis of the verses in question, taking into consideration context.

However I appreciate Paul's concern. To be clear, I only said I don't believe that anyone who deliberately volunteers to hurt others, is believing in the Christ who submits to a cross of suffering at the hands of his enemies, prays for his enemies and returns good for evil. I'm pretty confident about that. I never said that a person can't depart from the faith or that there aren't degrees of faith or weak faith. I only said we don't have freewill, in the moral purview. And that means we can't be good without God/Christ/Holy Spirit/Love/empathy. Show me that we can choose to be good apart from God/Love, and I'll believe in freewill.

Sigh, another false dichotomy. As I and Jethro have been pointing out, that's not what freewill means, good apart from God. That's your (purposeful?) misunderstanding of a true doctrine.

 

[childeye]

I am describing "weakness of the flesh", but not as Paul describes it in Romans 7. In context, that is concerning the Mosaic law due to the fact there were "Judiazers" trying to push a "you must be circumcised to be saved" doctrine. Romans, and most of Paul's letters, are reactions to these people. Those that believe as you do usually bring up these often misinterpreted verses as "proof texts". They are not.

Proof of what? What exactly do you think I'm trying to prove? I'm only comparing what you say to what Paul describes. I wasn't trying to prove anything.

Lol...Yes, because there is no mention of "degrees of change" in Hebrews 10. The author of Hebrews (Paul?) and his audience are not in the process of getting into the "spiritual mindset", they are there, as Scripture says. Wouldn't you consider yourself as having a "renewed spiritual mindset"? And Paul just wasn't there yet when he wrote Hebrews? Really...

I don't think you understand what I said. It's hard to understand you because I can't tell if your being facetious. I never said Paul isn't spiritually minded when he wrote Hebrews. I'm saying I don't identify with the sin in my members as me. I don't take it personally and I don't lay other people's sin personally on them either. I think we're talking about two different things here. It seems to me, that you think I'm saying Hebrews 10 is not talking about spiritually minded people. I never said that nor thought it.

The only thing I'm "to into", Childeye, is rightly dividing the Word. Does Romans 7 agree with you? Let's see.

I'm sure we are all interested in rightly dividing the word. Does Romans agree with me? I'm only verifying what you mean by your testimony, that you don't want to sin and yet Satan makes sin look SSSOOOOO good that you freely choose it over God.

12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good. 13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, working death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.
"14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin."

Is he speaking as a believer in Christ here? I don't think so. He is speaking as a Jew, and setting up what follows.

I agree, he is explaining how he is unable to keep the law through freewill.

"15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good."

How could he be speaking as a believer here? He needs the law to point out sin? As a Christian?

He's saying his will is not free to do what he wants.

17 So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. 21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, 23 but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members.

The law can save no one, because it can only point out the depravity of man. This is what the law did, pointed out the sin within man, and even though the Jew WANTED to uphold the law, he couldn't. All these laws...It's hopeless...

I agree.

24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin."

Again, he can't possibly be speaking as a Christian? He OF HIMSELF "is serving the law of God" with his mind. Did he preach that Christians OF THEMSELVES "serve the law of God", or does he condemn this kind of thinking throughout his letters as "works"? Therefore, he is still speaking as a Jew. So, what can possibly save him from this wretchedness...


1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Ahhh...there is an answer to his dilemma, and it isn't through the Mosaic law. Now he is speaking as a Christian

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death.

He has been set free from the law. "Now" he is speaking as a Christian, contrasting the "law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" with what he was talking about before, "the law of sin and death", the Mosaic law.

3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Jesus is the one who can deliver us from the condemnation of the Mosaic law, with all it's ordinances. You are plucking out a few verses meant to be part of a broader point, and constructing doctrine out of them. This isn't exegesis...

I don't know what you mean. I agree with all of this.

It wasn't built around "if", it was built around proper Biblical exegesis of the verses in question, taking into consideration context.

Welll maybe I'm not understanding your point. I thought you were trying to say that we have freewills because we can willfully sin. I am pointing out that sin is not freedom unless you have a spirit of rebellion.

Sigh, another false dichotomy. As I and Jethro have been pointing out, that's not what freewill means, good apart from God. That's your (purposeful?) misunderstanding of a true doctrine.

I think you and Jethro don't realize that there is a such thing as conflating choice/ option with choice/decision. You see a choice presented and call it freewill. I'm going by the definition of free will in the English dictionary and you two are speaking of something else. There is no false dichotomy, when using the dictionary definition in the moral purview. If you guys are saying that free will is one set free from sin, then that would make sense. Scripture however doesn't use the term free will unless it means voluntary and not of necessity. Whereas, I see every moral choice as falling under the umbrella of life vs death. Since Life is in Christ, there is no way to live apart from Him. He is a necessity. I think that is sound reasoning.

 

[OzSpen]

There is no good answer as to how someone can claim they do not volunteer to hurt others while they simultaneously claim they volunteer to hurt others. That is how I know freewill is a lie in the moral purview. You're either ruled by Truth, or lies. Therefore, one must be deceived into wanting to hurt someone else, and also deceived into rejecting God.

Freewill is a masterful lie that, when believed, removes a person from considering where their thoughts are coming from, and who is controlling their emotions, all for the noble cause of taking responsibility for our actions. For example, you say you're a sinner because you choose self over God. But this is a false dichotomy. The Truth is, we can never choose self over God, since to choose God is to choose the self. Next thing you know, the devil has us convinced that all the good things are forfeited when we serve God. This is the thinking that Satan manages to place in our minds, and it all shows up in our words and actions.


Empathy is not subjective by definition. When we experience empathy, we feel others as if we were them. Satan perverts empathy by finding reasons not to have to care. He makes Empathy a burden so that we don't want to feel it. Again, Satan is deceiving you into thinking these people are arrogant with a sense of entitlement. Satan probably is telling them that this is what you think of them at the same time, hence it is self-fulfilling. They probably go talk about you, saying you're there not because you care about them, but to score points with God. Misery upon misery, and sin upon sin.
But this is righteousness by works. That's what freewill actually is. It's works based, not faith based. You can't choose self over God without first blindly accepting the false premise, that serving God is not serving your best interests. You need to see through Satan's lies. How can we claim we have a freewill when Satan plays us like a concert violinist? He orchestrates all sin.

The choice is only present because Satan puts it there. It has nothing to do with your will. Satan has you conflating choice/option with choice/decision. That's why freewill in the moral purview is an equivocation.

First off, this fictitious woman is being moved by Satan. She doesn't see it, for she thinks this is love, and you're hot. Once your marriage is wrecked, her desire for you will suddenly vanish, and so will she. However, if we see this for what it is, the devil playing us, there can be no temptation. You're so worried about YOUR SIN, as if that's what matters. This is why I detest freewill theology. Freewill is a foundational lie that exists for the purpose of blame and subterfuge, when in fact all sin happens because people are deceived into doing it. But Noooo.... we can't blame the devil, and forgive others and ourselves with a pure heart. We need to beat ourselves for being stupid, so that the smartness will come.


This just means we admit we have sin, not that we volunteer for it. We're born into sin through the first Adam. And we're born into righteousness through the second Adam. Romans 5:19.

Well said. Indeed there are two spiritual powers above us. One rules through deception and one rules through Truth.

Actually, I do respect you, even as I am candid with you. Sure, I sometimes say "respectfully", so as to pre-empt any thoughts that I'm speaking out of arrogance. If by chance I come across as arrogant, then my credibility with you will be compromised.
If there is no freewill decision for spiritual things how is the sin mine? Sin is a direction away and in separation from God. It is therefore both a spiritual condition of corruption, and also an action that proceeds out of that spiritual condition. One need not have freewill to have sin, they just need a will born in corruption. But there is no blame for sin that happens because of blindness. John 9:41. Matthew 7:1-2. Romans 2:1.

Do you think that Satan is so powerful that he can't be denied? To me, you're asking me if Satan is more cunning than we are. Yes, at first he is, particularly if we believe we have freewill. We don't see him working in us, even as we blame others for the same sin we all have. But the renewing of the mind through the Holy Spirit that testifies to Christ, gives us power over him. We need the Truth to set us free from the lies that hold us captive. John 8:32.

How does Satan "deceiving us" translate into us having no choice in the matter? First off, we didn't choose to be deceived. We don't invite the devil into our minds to deceive us, as if that's plausible. Secondly, we are using terms here that are subjective. The term 'will' means the ability to reason, to choose and to desire. The term free will means we do these things free from the constraint of fate or divines force. So in the moral purview we do choose, but not freely. Our choices are driven by either Truth we see, or lies we don't see, or lies we see as true. Matthew 6:22-24.

So did you choose to make this post or not?

 

[dadof10]

Proof of what? What exactly do you think I'm trying to prove? I'm only comparing what you say to what Paul describes. I wasn't trying to prove anything.

If you are simply comparing our differing views to Scripture, why don't you respond to 1Jn. 8?

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

As your view has unfolded here, the relevant points that I disagree with are:
1) That you "don't identify with the sin in my members as me".
2) That "the sin belongs to no one", not the individual sinner.
3) You personally don't sin in the "moral purview".

It is obvious you do not think that you sin, that Satan or your "members" or "no one" is responsible for the sins that you commit. So, how does this view compare to what John is saying above?

 

[WIP]

Yes, I know you try to refrain from sin because you take it personally as your sin. I was the same way when I believed in freewill. I believe that's why I always had a guilty conscience. One day, during the most sinful time in my life, I just gave up trying to be righteous and admitted to God and to myself, that I was not righteous and was never going to be. That was the day I stopped trying to refrain from sin and became completely dependent upon God in His mercy. I now just walk in the Love of others as myself and thank God for the Holy Spirit that makes me able to stand.

Are you saying that you have now accepted your sinfulness and no longer resist your carnal nature and allow yourself to indulge in worldly things?

 

[smaller]

I can count on one hand the number of Christians who think they do not sin. But I can't count the number of Christians who know full well they sin but say it doesn't matter that they do, it's just the way it is, accept it.

Indwelling sin and evil present do what they do, and do so by the prompting of the Word, the Law.

God shows His Divine Superiority via this construct, which He has made.

Romans 5:20
Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

Romans 7:8
But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

1 Corinthians 15:56
The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

The above is the dynamic between sin and law. The dynamic doesn't change.

Sin responds in resistance and adversity within to Gods Words like a puppet on a string.

That is the much more prevalent argument in the Protestant Church and which you seem to be a prophet of. I resist the teaching with every fiber of my being.

Whether anyone resists or not, indwelling sin does what it does. The dynamic was set in motion from the moment God laid the law upon Adam and it continues to this day. No amount of "labor" against this working will change it because it is an adverse relationship between Gods Words and indwelling sin, which is of the devil.

It goes completely contrary to Paul's teaching to resist the sin nature putting it to death, not surrender to it because it's a lost cause to try to fight it.

Paul made no such teaching. He makes clear in Romans 7 that the cycle of resistance goes and is meant to go full swing, resulting in him seeing his own wretched condition.

Romans 7:24
O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

Paul understood the utter futility of trying to make indwelling sin, evil present OBEY. It simply will NOT happen.

25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

The above is the picture of the divided believer who understands his factual present state. And his view of himself in 1 Tim. 1:15

"12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, 13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not be master over you" (Romans 6:12-15 NASB)

This is a vastly different message than what you constantly teach in these forums.

It is there to reign, which is exactly the points that Paul exposes. No one makes their indwelling sin and evil present any better than what it factually is.

Paul identifies this exact construct here:

Romans 9:
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Paul AGAIN shows this identical matter here:

Galatians 4:
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

It is impossible to condemn a vessel of mercy, those born after the spirit. And it is equally impossible to justify the vessel of dishonor, those born after the flesh. Both of these are standing in the same pair of shoes.

Jesus showed us the identical principle, here:

Mark 4:
15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

Luke 8:12
Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

Matthew 13:19
When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

Peter, here:

2 Peter 2:9
The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

The exact INSTANT when any believer realizes and understands that it is the working of the tempter "within" them that is the "vessel of dishonor" they will STOP trying to SAVE and JUSTIFY THE DEVIL, and will rather CONDEMN that working in themselves for the foreign agent/intrusion that it is.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Indwelling sin and evil present do what they do, and do so by the prompting of the Word, the Law.
[...]
Sin responds in resistance and adversity within to Gods Words like a puppet on a string.

The law can only provoke sin in the person still married to sinful flesh, not for those now married to Jesus Christ....unless they want to entertain old husband flesh:

"5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. " (Romans 7:5 NASB emphasis mine)

 

[smaller]

The law can only provoke sin in the person still married to sinful flesh, not for those now married to Jesus Christ....unless they want to entertain old husband flesh:

Indwelling sin, evil present, the tempter, will never be vowed or aligned with God in Christ. The flesh of Paul still served the law of sin. Romans 7:25

Paul advises us clear about the present conditions of our planting in this world:

1 Cor. 15:
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

We on earth will NEVER know the afterward until these things of the natural pass away. We we are RAISED, incorruptible, in glory, power and a Spiritual Body.

Til then, this is our state:

Colossians 3:3
For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.

All the fanciful thinking in the world will not change our present reality. We abide in FAITH for HOPE of the "things to come."

In the meantime, we try not to be the pawn or subservant or subservient to or of evil. To say we have no present contention, internal, with these realities is FALSE.

We all deal with corruption, (death of the body, because of sin indwelling, Romans 8:10)
Dishonorable thoughts in the form of temptations and lusts within.
and the present weakness that these things present.

2 Corinthians 11:30
If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities.http://legacy.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2 Corinthians+12:5&version=KJV

2 Corinthians 12:
Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.

2 Corinthians 12:9
And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

 

[childeye]

Are you saying that you have now accepted your sinfulness and no longer resist your carnal nature and allow yourself to indulge in worldly things?

That's kind of a trick question. I was already indulging in worldly things no matter how hard I resisted when I accepted that I couldn't be righteous by my own will.

But to answer your question, I indulge only as much as I am able to. I am not able to get the satisfaction from carnal pleasures as I once did, or rather thought I did.

The funny thing is, once I humbled myself to accept that I could not be righteous, the Holy Spirit made me also admit that others could not help their sin either. Then I was forced to stop being critical of others, and began to love unconditionally. Simultaneously, the temptations to sin that were consuming me before, ceased to have the power to entice. It seems when we draw lines for others that we ourselves don't meet, this begets iniquity, iniquity begets sin (separation from God), and the conscience becomes defiled.

 

[childeye]

So did you choose to make this post or not?

I don't recall choosing to make it or not. I simply like talking to others about God.

 

[WIP]

But to answer your question, I indulge only as much as I am able to.

I assume and hope this is a poor choice of words?

 

[childeye]

If you are simply comparing our differing views to Scripture, why don't you respond to 1Jn.1:8?

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

I did respond. This just means we admit we have sin, not that we volunteer for it. We're born into sin through the first Adam. And we're born into righteousness through the second Adam. Romans 5:19.

As your view has unfolded here, the relevant points that I disagree with are:
1) That you "don't identify with the sin in my members as me".
2) That "the sin belongs to no one", not the individual sinner.
3) You personally don't sin in the "moral purview".

It is obvious you do not think that you sin, that Satan or your "members" or "no one" is responsible for the sins that you commit. So, how does this view compare to what John is saying above?

I think my view squares perfectly with 1 John 1:8 as well as all of scripture. However I don't think you're contemplating the semantics above in number 3. When I say I don't identify me with the sin in me, that is in my members, that does not mean I don't sin and never sin. It simply means I don't want to sin.

Let me discuss this further. There are sins of omission and commission. As long as someone in the world is starving or cold and I am full and warm, I am in fact sinning. I see no way around that. I do take that personally, but not in any prideful manner that it is my sin that I own, but because people are suffering and someone needs to help them. When do I do enough? There is never enough. So I'm always sinning in some degree.