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

[WIP]

Please, address the topic and leave attitudes checked at the door.

 

[dadof10]

The "identity" of the "rich man" is parabolic in nature, and is to be understood that way.

Again, whether the episode was a parable or not is irrelevant to our discussion. Jesus says to inherit eternal life, he must keep the commandments, and if he wishes (wants) to become perfect, he can (if he chooses) sell all he has and follow. Even if it was a parable, it still teaches truth. The truth Jesus is trying to convey is not changed if it was a parable instead of a real life event.

That was my initial observation, taken from the PARABLE delivered in this matter of the "unidentified rich man" in Luke 16. In order to understand "parables" we turn to Mark 4, for which the dissections and understandings of every parable are delivered by Jesus. And in that parable, we can see that there are 3 major components, Gods Word(s), man and the devil(s.)

This shows how intent you are to read your personal theology into the text. Where are "the devil(s)" in this parable? There is no mention of a "tempter" or a "devil" here.

The "rich man" is actually the "owner" of the flesh of all people. The RULER of his, this temporal passing domain of the flesh. See 2 Cor. 4:4 to see this ruler in actions within his blinded SLAVES.

Which words in this "parable" lead you to conclude this?

But since you fly under the notion of 'freewill' you will NOT be able to see this matter, and instead, have been falsely led to see 'ONLY MAN's will" and not the will of the slave master, from who's POWER over "our minds" we have been turned from. Acts 26:18.

I fly under the notion of common sense, Smaller. There is no mention of any of your particular doctrines in this story at all.

And I would beg to differ on that subject. There are too many encounters with these entities "in man" to even begin to site them but I would instantly point to Matt. 16:23, Mark 8:33, Luke 4:8, Luke 22:3 and John 13:27 for this transpiring in DISCIPLES first and foremost.



Yes, and did "deal" with "them" in MAN, which is their place of habitation. Mark 5:9, Luke 11:24.

If "in man" is a devil's or tempter's "place of habitation", why does Jesus cast them out? Certainly there are demonic possessions, but to say that this is the normal state of man is to ignore the numerous Biblical examples of exorcisms performed by Jesus and others.

 

[dadof10]

The thing is your question contains a premise that is unsubstantiated. I don't even think Jesus was trying to convey a free will choice to begin with, so it's a loaded question to ask me if I think Jesus would have chosen a different word if he wanted to convey something other than a freewill choice.
It seems that anytime you see a choice happening, you automatically assume it is freely made.

There are only two options here. Either it's free or coerced. Do you see any indication that the choice the Rich Man made was coerced? Then, it has to be free will.

Therefore you say that thelo conveys 'choice' while your question contains "convey something OTHER THAN free will choice". I think we should agree that making a choice is a mental deliberation. That is not the same as a 'desire', which is a feeling or emotion that one has within. Therefore, to me, the scripture is properly translated as "want to", not choose to.

You are confusing feelings and actions. Why did the Rich Man go away sad if he simply "felt" like he didn't "want or desire" to sell his possessions? There would be no sadness at all, he would simply feel. and walk away. No, he WANTED AND DESIRED to following Jesus, but his need for riches got in the way. He was presented with a choice, weighed his options (mental deliberations) and he went against his conscience. He really wanted (feeling) to follow Jesus, but he walked away (action), hence the sadness.

 

[dadof10]

This is pretty close to what I believe with one exception in your application. The change that happens to a person happens in degrees. A person will still sin while they are being transformed by the True Image of God, but that sin will decrease even as their mind is being renewed. This means that the desires of the flesh are still present, but they become more and more irrelevant as we become transformed into Christ. There are no ill desires in Christ.

So, there are people who have been "transformed into Christ" and these people are sinless?

The scripture says, that believing in a false image of god, does corrupt a person, that was my point. So that it can be established that a True and Pure Image of God, is what keeps the heart, mind and soul pure.

Let's take a step back. How would one GET a true image of God? Do we make choices that we want to HAVE this image? Is it just forced on us by God? You seem to be describing what most people call "conversion", calling it having a proper "image of God". Same with your view of us being born with a "false image of god", which most people call "original sin".

The fact that you don't even see the false image presented by Satan in Genesis 3:4-5, is proof of his cunning subterfuge.

I do see it in the verses in Genesis. I don't see it in the verse in Deuteronomy "Lest ye corrupt yourselves..." Your point was "This scripture shows that a corrupt image of god corrupts the person." The Israelites here CHOSE "graven images" over God. They sinned, or backslid, even after all God did for them, bringing them out of Egypt. They chose corruption, which is why it says corrupted "yourself".

This is what I mean by being His equal.
Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
John 5:18
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
Philippians 2:5-7.
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

So, we can be "equal" to God like Jesus is equal to Him?

I believe we are born in sin, that is, we inherit from our family lines certain sinful tendencies.

Me too. I just call it original sin.

But we are also born knowing God since we experience Love. As for the false image of god, I don't think we are born with it. It seems more plausible to me that we learn this false image through this worldly existence. Hence I use 2 Corinthians 4:4, to show that scripture identifies a "god of this world", that is in opposition to the True Image that comes as Jesus.

OK. I wonder if you can see why I'm confused. Here is what you wrote above "Okay, let me try this again. Sin means a direction in separation from God. We're born in sin, and that means, because we have a false image of god in our soul, we are separated from God through a corrupt image of Him." Which is it?

By grace, through faith in the Gospel of Christ is how we receive the True Image of God. The Christ is the antithesis of the image sown by Satan. Freewill has nothing to do with it. The Christ is a quickening Spirit, which means he quickens that which is already there, yet has been corrupted. Hence the term 'corruption', is an important word when contemplating our spiritual condition. I personally believe that we already do know God, even because we know Love/Empathy. That Love becomes perverted through belief in a false image of god.

Is this Grace that comes through Christ irresistible? It is for me, but that's because I see it as such. For I would definitely rather believe that God is a person that would sacrifice Himself to save me, than believe He is a person who would sacrifice me, to save Himself.

Huh? Who believes this? Again, I don't get your point.

It's like comparing Light to dark. I know you see a choice/option here. That does not mean I can freely choose/decide, to believe Jesus is a foolish image of god.

It's either free or forced (irresistible). I don't see any gray area here. We can either cooperate with Grace (or not) or have it forced on us whether we like it or not. That's why I asked at the very beginning of our discussion if you believed the "I" and "U" of T.U.L.I.P. "Irresistible Grace" is what you are describing, I think.

Is this an unconditional election? I'm not sure what Calvinists mean by that.

"Unconditional Election is the belief that God, with no regard to the will of man, made an eternal choice of certain persons unto eternal life and some to eternal damnation and that number is so fixed that it cannot be changed."

Do you agree with this definition?

 

[childeye]

There are only two options here. Either it's free or coerced. Do you see any indication that the choice the Rich Man made was coerced? Then, it has to be free will.

I do see coercion working here in the form of threats and lies. I think this scripture is about what is perfection. And I think this man was struggling with that. I see a man enslaved by the Love for his possessions. I don't see a man that is free in his will to choose not to be. He is threatened with the thought of personal loss. and he is lied to about how his possessions make him who he is. I think he would have to grow in faith before he would be able to choose to let go of his possessions.

I believe the rich man would have to understand and believe this Truth, conveniently found in Mark 10:29-30, to be set free from the lie that prompts his slavery to riches.
29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

If it were possible for this man to choose to give up his possessions apart from God, then why would Jesus say this? Mark 10:27, 27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

You are confusing feelings and actions. Why did the Rich Man go away sad if he simply "felt" like he didn't "want or desire" to sell his possessions? There would be no sadness at all, he would simply feel. and walk away. No, he WANTED AND DESIRED to following Jesus, but his need for riches got in the way. He was presented with a choice, weighed his options (mental deliberations) and he went against his conscience. He really wanted (feeling) to follow Jesus, but he walked away (action), hence the sadness.

I know the difference between feelings and actions. In fact I mean to draw the distinction since feelings precede and dictate the corresponding actions. Therefore what you say is correct, there definitely is a spiritual battle begun inside this rich man, and I might add that it isn't by his free will. The Truth that Christ speaks is battling with lies.

 

[childeye]

So, there are people who have been "transformed into Christ" and these people are sinless?

I only say that we are in the process of being transformed. Romans 12:2. 2 Corinthians 10:5.

Let's take a step back. How would one GET a true image of God? Do we make choices that we want to HAVE this image? Is it just forced on us by God?

No, I don't believe we choose whether we want to have this image of God. There is no greater Love that has been shown to the world.

You seem to be describing what most people call "conversion", calling it having a proper "image of God". Same with your view of us being born with a "false image of god", which most people call "original sin".

Yes I am describing conversion.

I do see it in the verses in Genesis. I don't see it in the verse in Deuteronomy "Lest ye corrupt yourselves..." Your point was "This scripture shows that a corrupt image of god corrupts the person." The Israelites here CHOSE "graven images" over God. They sinned, or backslid, even after all God did for them, bringing them out of Egypt. They chose corruption, which is why it says corrupted "yourself".

They imagined God falsely. I can only marvel at the ignorance and wonder at how stupid we can be. I would surmise that these people don't know that they are corrupting themselves. In all humility I think these things are written for our admonition. And I mean, that I shouldn't think myself as better than any of these who display such ignorance.

So, we can be "equal" to God like Jesus is equal to Him?

Yes I think we can. I'm certainly not there yet.

OK. I wonder if you can see why I'm confused. Here is what you wrote above "Okay, let me try this again. Sin means a direction in separation from God. We're born in sin, and that means, because we have a false image of god in our soul, we are separated from God through a corrupt image of Him." Which is it?

Yes, I do see cause for confusion. The problem is partly semantics. Sin began through believing in a false image of god Genesis 3:4-5. So separation occurred because of it. The other problem, is that while I believe we inherit sinful tendencies, I don't actually think that we inherit a false image of god through our parents. I think we have a form of innocence similar to Adam and Eve when we are born. I think the world challenges our faith just as Adams was challenged.

Huh? Who believes this? Again, I don't get your point.

My point is that By grace, through faith in the Gospel of Christ is how we receive the True Image of God. God reveals His son and we see His grace through his son and those who are able to receive him as the Truth of God's Character, do believe. Matthew 13:18.

It's either free or forced (irresistible). I don't see any gray area here. We can either cooperate with Grace (or not) or have it forced on us whether we like it or not.

I think it depends on the individuals condition of the heart whether they would see it as forced or liberating.

That's why I asked at the very beginning of our discussion if you believed the "I" and "U" of T.U.L.I.P. "Irresistible Grace" is what you are describing, I think.

I can only speak for myself. I called out to God for help in my life. He revealed His Christ and I was glad to see him. It would be a lie for me to say I could have chosen to not be glad.

"Unconditional Election is the belief that God, with no regard to the will of man, made an eternal choice of certain persons unto eternal life and some to eternal damnation and that number is so fixed that it cannot be changed."

Do you agree with this definition?

From an eternal standpoint I don't see how this could happen otherwise. To God, all things are already come to pass. Isaiah 46:10. But, from the temporal point of view, this Jesus comes forth in the midst of the creation, while time is still unfolding. That means God is working from inside of the creation also, which implies change from within. This creates a new set of variables to have to deal with. Ecclesiastes 3:11. For example, I know there is a book of life that belongs to the lamb. I know that he can blot a persons name out. Whether in the end anyone gets their name blotted out remains to be seen. So while I think it is already past to God, we still yet reside in hope. God chooses the lowly to put to naught the mighty of men. He chooses the foolish things over the wise, expressly so that it is not by the will of men. 1 Corinthians 1:27. 1 Corinthians 1:29. John 1:13.

 

[smaller]

Again, whether the episode was a parable or not is irrelevant to our discussion. Jesus says to inherit eternal life, he must keep the commandments, and if he wishes (wants) to become perfect, he can (if he chooses) sell all he has and follow. Even if it was a parable, it still teaches truth. The truth Jesus is trying to convey is not changed if it was a parable instead of a real life event.

I pointed to the parable of the "rich man" in Luke 16. I'm certainly NOT saying the account with the "rich" young ruler wasn't a real encounter. The questions in all encounters is this: Did Jesus only encounter a man, OR did Jesus address his spiritual internal captivity by the "god of this world?" 2 Cor. 4:4

This shows how intent you are to read your personal theology into the text. Where are "the devil(s)" in this parable? There is no mention of a "tempter" or a "devil" here.

Every "spiritually blind" person has the internal issue of captivity by an adverse internal agent that IS NOT THEM. Even us, prior to belief. Eph. 2:2

If "in man" is a devil's or tempter's "place of habitation", why does Jesus cast them out?

Uh, because "these other parties" co-habitate within man.

Luke 11:24
When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out.

Man is their "house."

Certainly there are demonic possessions, but to say that this is the normal state of man is to ignore the numerous Biblical examples of exorcisms performed by Jesus and others.

I'd suggest the contrary. 2 Cor. 4:4 Eph. 2:2 1 John 3:8 and many many others show that demonic spiritual blindness and the devil's connection to all sin is in fact "universal" to all mankind.

 

[dadof10]

I do see coercion working here in the form of threats and lies. I think this scripture is about what is perfection. And I think this man was struggling with that. I see a man enslaved by the Love for his possessions. I don't see a man that is free in his will to choose not to be. He is threatened with the thought of personal loss. and he is lied to about how his possessions make him who he is. I think he would have to grow in faith before he would be able to choose to let go of his possessions.

Again, I'm confused by your answer. You have repeatedly said we can not choose "in the moral purview", yet you have just said "he would be able to choose to let go of his possessions", which would be in the moral purview since it would ostensibly make him "perfect".

I believe the rich man would have to understand and believe this Truth, conveniently found in Mark 10:29-30, to be set free from the lie that prompts his slavery to riches.
29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.


If it were possible for this man to choose to give up his possessions apart from God, then why would Jesus say this? Mark 10:27, 27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

Because Jesus is not talking about "giving up his possessions" here, he is answering the apostles question about "Who then can be saved?" The Jews at the time believed that temporal blessings showed favor from God. Jesus turns this thinking on it's head, which is why they're "astonished". I am not saying it's possible to do ANYTHING apart from God, give up possessions, or anything else. Cooperating with Grace (free will) is not done apart from God, but with His help.

I know the difference between feelings and actions. In fact I mean to draw the distinction since feelings precede and dictate the corresponding actions. Therefore what you say is correct, there definitely is a spiritual battle begun inside this rich man, and I might add that it isn't by his free will. The Truth that Christ speaks is battling with lies.

OK, so he didn't do what he "wanted" to do, but what he didn't want? Again I'm confused. I thought one of your earlier points was that no one does what they don't want to do. If someone desires an action, that's what they do and if he is properly disposed (has a proper image of God) he will "want" and do the right thing, if not, he will do the wrong thing, but it's not his fault because his "image of god" is lacking. You seem to be saying here that a person CAN reject his desire (e.g. sell...follow) and go against his conscience. The Rich Man does not have a "proper image of god", so rejects Jesus' teachings, even though he doesn't "want" to. I don't see how what you have been saying up to this point corresponds with a person going against his conscience and feeling sadness about it. It seems that if it's as you say, the Rich Man with the lacking image of god, would have walked away and scoffed instead of felt sadness.

 

[dadof10]

I only say that we are in the process of being transformed. Romans 12:2. 2 Corinthians 10:5.

So, "we" all still sin, or do you think there are some who have such an "image of God" that they don't?

No, I don't believe we choose whether we want to have this image of God. There is no greater Love that has been shown to the world. Yes I am describing conversion.

Then it is forced upon us? I don't see a third option here.

They imagined God falsely. I can only marvel at the ignorance and wonder at how stupid we can be. I would surmise that these people don't know that they are corrupting themselves.

They weren't "corrupting themselves", God was warning them NOT to.

"Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire:
Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,"

They had a CHOICE whether they would "take...heed" or not. Again, free will. If it were not possible to "corrupt yourselves" there would be no warning.

In all humility I think these things are written for our admonition. And I mean, that I shouldn't think myself as better than any of these who display such ignorance.

I don't really see ignorance here. God is specifically telling them not to do something. If they choose to do it anyway, they are sinning. Yes, these are written for our admonition, so we won't repeat their sins, we choose

Yes I think we can. I'm certainly not there yet.

This was in response to the question "can we be equal to God, as Jesus is?" I'm guessing you are not Trinitarian?

My point is that By grace, through faith in the Gospel of Christ is how we receive the True Image of God. God reveals His son and we see His grace through his son and those who are able to receive him as the Truth of God's Character, do believe. Matthew 13:18.

I was commenting on this: "For I would definitely rather believe that God is a person that would sacrifice Himself to save me, than believe He is a person who would sacrifice me, to save Himself." I don't believe that and don't know anyone who does. I'm just wondering why you would bring it up.

I think it depends on the individuals condition of the heart whether they would see it as forced or liberating.
I can only speak for myself. I called out to God for help in my life. He revealed His Christ and I was glad to see him. It would be a lie for me to say I could have chosen to not be glad.

OK. Was this "calling out" done out of a free will decision or was it forced by God? What "made" you call out in the first place? I have done the same thing at times in my life. I freely choose the wrong path over and over and finally give up trying to do it myself. I call out to God and he answers. He allows me the free will to reject His Love, and follow my own path or accept His Love and be happy. This is true Love. Any coercion would not be love at all.

From an eternal standpoint I don't see how this could happen otherwise. To God, all things are already come to pass. Isaiah 46:10. But, from the temporal point of view, this Jesus comes forth in the midst of the creation, while time is still unfolding. That means God is working from inside of the creation also, which implies change from within. This creates a new set of variables to have to deal with. Ecclesiastes 3:11. For example, I know there is a book of life that belongs to the lamb. I know that he can blot a persons name out. Whether in the end anyone gets their name blotted out remains to be seen. So while I think it is already past to God, we still yet reside in hope. God chooses the lowly to put to naught the mighty of men. He chooses the foolish things over the wise, expressly so that it is not by the will of men. 1 Corinthians 1:27. 1 Corinthians 1:29. John 1:13.

I agree with what you seem to be saying. There is an "elect" and God can see it since He is outside of time. We can't, so must "work out our own salvation".

 

[dadof10]

I pointed to the parable of the "rich man" in Luke 16. I'm certainly NOT saying the account with the "rich" young ruler wasn't a real encounter. The questions in all encounters is this: Did Jesus only encounter a man, OR did Jesus address his spiritual internal captivity by the "god of this world?" 2 Cor. 4:4



Every "spiritually blind" person has the internal issue of captivity by an adverse internal agent that IS NOT THEM. Even us, prior to belief. Eph. 2:2

So, nothing within the "parable" says anything about "spiritual internal captivity"? Thanks.

Uh, because "these other parties" co-habitate within man.

This doesn't answer the question. If the tempter's "place of habitation" is naturally within man, why does Jesus cast them out? It seems that if Jesus came across a possessed person He would somehow subject the "tempter" who is out of control or something. But He CASTS THEM OUT OF THE PERSON. After this exorcism there are no more "tempters" inside the man. It is gone. So, how can it be that the natural state of man is sharing his body with a demon, yet Jesus casts it out?

Luke 11:24
When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out.

Man is their "house."

So, unclean spirits enter and exit man at will? Sometimes there are a bunch in there and other times there are none?

I'd suggest the contrary. 2 Cor. 4:4 Eph. 2:2 1 John 3:8 and many many others show that demonic spiritual blindness and the devil's connection to all sin is in fact "universal" to all mankind.

Again, this doesn't answer the question. "Certainly there are demonic possessions, but to say that this is the normal state of man is to ignore the numerous Biblical examples of exorcisms performed by Jesus and others." If the normal state of man is with a demon inside of him, why does Jesus cast them out?

 

[smaller]

So, nothing within the "parable" says anything about "spiritual internal captivity"? Thanks.

If we miss that, we miss the entire point of the Gospel. Yes, people are spiritually dead, and captives internally, to a power that is not them. Acts 26:18. This is the most basic element of the scriptures.

This doesn't answer the question. If the tempter's "place of habitation" is naturally within man, why does Jesus cast them out? It seems that if Jesus came across a possessed person He would somehow subject the "tempter" who is out of control or something. But He CASTS THEM OUT OF THE PERSON. After this exorcism there are no more "tempters" inside the man. It is gone. So, how can it be that the natural state of man is sharing his body with a demon, yet Jesus casts it out?

At least you see 'the overlap that Jesus shows us with man and devils.' And that is kinda the point, ain't it?

Jesus revealed and STILL reveals that the problems of MANKIND are "internal" in nature and are in fact quite thoroughly demonic. 1 John 3:8

 

[dadof10]

At least you see 'the overlap that Jesus shows us with man and devils.' And that is kinda the point, ain't it?

Well, no. Not exactly. The point is that if the normal state of man was to have a tempter residing within him, Jesus would not have cast them out. The fact that demons were cast out by Christ and not subdued somehow shows the folly of your view.

Jesus revealed and STILL reveals that the problems of MANKIND are "internal" in nature and are in fact quite thoroughly demonic. 1 John 3:8

I agree. We are born with original sin, and there are demons that tempt us. The difference between our views is that you believe these demons are organically inside man, I believe they influence from outside, through the imagination. This is the normal course of human existence. There are cases of demonic possession, but these are exceptions, not the norm. It is something foreign within man, so it can be removed.

 

[childeye]

Again, I'm confused by your answer. You have repeatedly said we can not choose "in the moral purview", yet you have just said "he would be able to choose to let go of his possessions", which would be in the moral purview since it would ostensibly make him "perfect".

I said we do not choose freely in the moral purview, I didn't say we don't choose in the moral purview. That is because we all need God/Love to act righteously. If we could freely choose to perform righteous acts without God's Spirit willing us, then we would have free wills in the moral purview. And on the contrary side of the moral spectrum, we all have the lies of the devil and the lust of the flesh warring against what is the good that God would have us do. So yes I believe this man would be enabled to choose to let go of his possessions gladly, if he had the Truth of God and was convinced by it.

Because Jesus is not talking about "giving up his possessions" here, he is answering the apostles question about "Who then can be saved?" The Jews at the time believed that temporal blessings showed favor from God. Jesus turns this thinking on it's head, which is why they're "astonished". I am not saying it's possible to do ANYTHING apart from God, give up possessions, or anything else. Cooperating with Grace (free will) is not done apart from God, but with His help.

While I think it is true that they probably thought this way about the rich person being favored by God, it still remains that only God can save a man. And also, that it is difficult for the rich person to enter in to the Kingdom of God. For it requires that a person share of their abundance with those who are without making him no longer rich. Hence the Gospel is good tidings for the poor. Only a Love/empathy greater than one's carnal self can accomplish this.

Cooperating with grace is not free will. Why? Because free will is an equivocation, which means that even if he doesn't cooperate with grace, that is going to be called free will anyway. In the moral purview there is only a will that is either motivated by and subject to, the Truth of God, or by default, the falsehood of God. When we cooperate with Grace it is because we see the Truth and are not deceived, and even this is because of Grace.

OK, so he didn't do what he "wanted" to do, but what he didn't want? Again I'm confused. I thought one of your earlier points was that no one does what they don't want to do. If someone desires an action, that's what they do and if he is properly disposed (has a proper image of God) he will "want" and do the right thing, if not, he will do the wrong thing, but it's not his fault because his "image of god" is lacking. You seem to be saying here that a person CAN reject his desire (e.g. sell...follow) and go against his conscience. The Rich Man does not have a "proper image of god", so rejects Jesus' teachings, even though he doesn't "want" to. I don't see how what you have been saying up to this point corresponds with a person going against his conscience and feeling sadness about it. It seems that if it's as you say, the Rich Man with the lacking image of god, would have walked away and scoffed instead of felt sadness.

I like your questions as they are well pointed. I appreciate that, so I need you to try to understand what I mean, when I say that there are semantics in our language, which I can't always account for without blowing a blood vessel somewhere in my thinker.

For example, this statement, "no one does what they don't want to do". It is ripe for semantic confusion. Did Jesus want to die on the cross? No he didn't, but yes, he did. How do we reconcile this as either he did or he didn't do what he wanted to? When there is a battle happening inside of a person, over what he will or will not do in any moral/immoral context, we are witnessing a battle over the will of that person being waged on a spiritual battlefield. So in that place of battle where a decision to do what we know is right is necessary, but is yet not a desirable thing to do, it is possible to accurately say that this person has two competing desires at once. So also do we see this happening here in this tale of the rich man. As it is also in ourselves, it is the carnal desire that is in conflict, with what empathy for others would have us do.

Concerning the conscience. I think this man was perfectly fine in his conscience up until the point where Jesus said he must part with his possessions if he wants to be perfect. You're right, he doesn't scoff, because something In Jesus' words tells him, what he knows deep down in his soul is true, and now there is a dilemma in his conscience. You have also said, that it was commonly thought that the rich person was favored by God, and presumably the poor person is not. Likewise the weak and infirm were despised and even considered accursed by god, which brings to mind this scripture, John 9:1. Therefore we have a worldly image of god by which we have a worldly wisdom, which is why the rich man is perfectly fine in his conscience until the True Image of God, Jesus, challenges that prior belief.

So why is this man sad and not scoffing if he has a false image of god at the helm of his conscience? Because despite any false imagery of god manufactured in our imaginations, God is still the Creator of mankind, and He is, and has always been the Light and Life of every man's soul. His reality is greater than our imaginations. Or as 1 Corinthians 1:25 says 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1 Corinthians 1:21, 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

 

[childeye]

So, "we" all still sin, or do you think there are some who have such an "image of God" that they don't?

First off, it's not such an "image of God". It's "the Christ" that is the True image of God sent by God for men to believe in and be saved. Personally, I believe whether we continue in sin or not is tantamount to how much faith we have. As we grow in faith of Christ as the True Image of God, the desires of the flesh that prompts sin, become all the more irrelevant. So yes there may be many people who have perfect faith and don't sin. John 1:4

Then it is forced upon us? I don't see a third option here.

There are semantics. God made us and His breath resides within us as the life and Light that has always been our sentience and our goodness. John 1:4. In a state of purity, we carry His countenance. In knowledge of this, one could never say God forces Himself upon us, unless you are saying that He brought dirt to life without dirt's permission. Only in freewill theology does this imagery exist where we must freely choose God, as if He is not the Light and Life of our very selves to begin with. It is therefore properly articulated that this Christ is forced upon the devil, who holds men captive through a false imagery of god. 2 Corinthians 4:4.

They weren't "corrupting themselves", God was warning them NOT to.

"Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire:
Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,"

They had a CHOICE whether they would "take...heed" or not. Again, free will. If it were not possible to "corrupt yourselves" there would be no warning.

Any person with a corrupt image of god, is indeed corrupt. Yes I agree they did not take heed. But that's not free will as you assert, nor do they know God as Love or empathy. Their will is already corrupt to begin with concerning any knowledge of God, since they imagine that they could create their own god, simply because they choose to. These are a stiff necked people as God describes them. He doesn't sound like He is under some delusion that they are going to change of their own free will.

I don't really see ignorance here. God is specifically telling them not to do something. If they choose to do it anyway, they are sinning. Yes, these are written for our admonition, so we won't repeat their sins, we choose.

If you don't see knowledge of God here, then there must be ignorance here. Don't you see that it doesn't matter what God tells anybody, if they don't have any faith in Him? The admonition you take away from this scripture is, don't be like these people who with the power of free will chose to not heed God and worshipped an imaginary false god. But instead, with the power of the same free will, we must choose to heed God and not worship any imagery of any false god. The admonition I take away from this is, don't think you're not like these people.

This was in response to the question "can we be equal to God, as Jesus is?" I'm guessing you are not Trinitarian?

My answer was a simple yes. How does that mean I am not a believer in the trinity? God is Spirit.

I was commenting on this: "For I would definitely rather believe that God is a person that would sacrifice Himself to save me, than believe He is a person who would sacrifice me, to save Himself." I don't believe that and don't know anyone who does. I'm just wondering why you would bring it up.

These are the two opposite characteristics of God/god. The god of this world is the one that sacrifices others, to save himself. This false imagery of god was presented by Satan in the garden of Eden which preceded sin in mankind. The True Characteristics of the True God are presented in the Christ, who sacrifices himself to save others even lesser than Himself. I think that the whole world believes in this false god at sometime in their life, as far as I know. Every war fought for the sake of power over others, every act of greed, every act of jealousy, every lie ever told, all racism and prejudice, indeed every sin, came from believing in this false image. Revelation 12:9.
Romans 12:1-3King James Version (KJV)
12 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

OK. Was this "calling out" done out of a free will decision or was it forced by God? What "made" you call out in the first place? I have done the same thing at times in my life. I freely choose the wrong path over and over and finally give up trying to do it myself. I call out to God and he answers. He allows me the free will to reject His Love, and follow my own path or accept His Love and be happy. This is true Love. Any coercion would not be love at all.

I believe it was forced by God in the big picture. His Truth has boundaries for this very purpose. My sin, which I did not choose to have, had brought me to a place of desperation and there was nowhere else to turn. Like the prodigal son, I had to learn the way things are, the hard way. This is why I say that no one freely chooses the wrong path. I know I didn't. The wrong path is falsehood and ends in misery.

Free will is an equivocation. That is why this statement is a contradiction: "I freely choose the wrong path over and over and finally give up trying to do it myself". You are describing the slavery of sin. Freewill in the moral purview is imaginary and it is vanity.


The idea that if we can't freely reject God, it is coercion, is nonsense to me. There is only One God, there is no alternative. God is our Father and Creator, even our very sentience is His breath. There is no life apart from God and dead men don't choose anything. God/Love, is the same Spirit we are born with, wherein we Love our parents and our brothers and sisters. We don't choose to Love or not Love. We experience Love, and it is of the highest value in all of heaven and earth. Love transcends our meager existence. It can't be thought of as coercion simply because we didn't choose to have it, any more than breathing air is coercion, because I don't freely choose to breathe. Hence anyone who thinks they can freely reject God is deceived. 1 John 4:6.

 

[rthom7]

Childeye,

May I ask you one question? When you read the verse....

My answer was a simple yes. How does that mean I am not a believer in the trinity? God is Spirit.

Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Do you see the Bible word "God" as a single entity? Also the words "is" and "him" are supplied by translation, not of part of the original Greek or Hebrew. Secondly the Hebrew does not have a word for "God", so the Hebrew rendering of this verse would be....

Elohim , a Ruwach, and they must worship Him must worship by Ruwach.

I see Elohim as the heavenly powers that flow, and the source of that power is from the Father whose powers are administrated by the Holy Spirit, is more likely the meaning of this text considering all the other Scriptures on the Family of Elohim.

Shalom

 

[smaller]

Well, no. Not exactly. The point is that if the normal state of man was to have a tempter residing within him, Jesus would not have cast them out. The fact that demons were cast out by Christ and not subdued somehow shows the folly of your view.

The fact that man is not "just and only" man was the point observation. There is the person and the blinder upon their minds. Simple scriptural premise. Difficult to see, because of the other party. 2 Cor. 4:4.

I agree. We are born with original sin, and there are demons that tempt us.

No one cares to think of their own mind being intruded upon, within, by a foreign agent. Men naturally reject that presentation of the scriptures, and do so "because" of the intruder upon their minds. We all "want" to only see the good about ourselves, and seldom confront that other working within as anything other than ourselves, as supposedly "free" agents. That isn't the scriptural case. Romans 9:17-24 is an exact picture of every person.

The difference between our views is that you believe these demons are organically inside man,

There is nothing "organic" about the devil and his messengers. They are unseen, and only revealed by the Light of Gods Words. Were it not for the revealing of the Word, we would have no clue whatsoever about these matters. Without Jesus, these matters would not have been seen:

Mark 1:27
And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him.

This command, in the inverse sense, was shown by Jesus in Mark 4:15, and demonstrated throughout the N.T. in various ways, by Paul in particular in Romans 7, showing the working of the tempter, of sin indwelling his own flesh, of evil present, in adverse fashions when encountering the law.

I believe they influence from outside, through the imagination.

Temptations transpire internally. That places the tempter "internal" to do so, just as Mark 4:15 shows, that Word is stolen from people's hearts via the tempter, who also 'blinds minds' 2 Cor. 4:4. These are "internal" workings of Satan's power over his captives. Acts 26:18.

This is the normal course of human existence. There are cases of demonic possession, but these are exceptions, not the norm. It is something foreign within man, so it can be removed.

No one is "immune." We can't even say we "have" no sin, present tense, and be "in Truth." 1 John 1:8. Sin is and remains "of the devil." 1 John 3:8.

We have faith. Satan doesn't. When God looks at any person, he sees both man and Satan, the tempter, the blinder of their hearts and minds. All see only in part. This makes everyone "partially" darkened, partly cloudly, partly presently obscured, partly blinded. 1 Cor. 13:12. This is the scriptural basis for children of God having fear and respect towards God, because we are supposed to know that there is more going on than meets the eye. People of faith do and can fall away from same -> because of the other operation that has an adverse will towards God in Christ. 2 Tim. 2:26. Believers who do not or can not see this will remain in confusions.

James 3:16
For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.

It is in fact Satan who has divided the churches. Every church of Revelation 2-3 shows the works of Satan in the people. This is also why NO MAN can be justified by works. We are justified by faith in Jesus Christ. Satan is stirred to resist in us all. When believers see this fact for themselves, they more quickly divide themselves from any of that working, understanding that it is in fact demonic intrusion upon themselves. They will also see the utter futility of claiming themselves "legal" under the law. Any close internal examination will reveal to those who are honest, evil thoughts, which DO defile everyone, therefore NO ONE is legal. Matt. 15:19-20, Mark 7:21-23, Matt. 5:28.

It was only the blinded Pharisees who falsely thought that by painting up the outside of the tomb, that they were "OK." That is not the case, never was the case. This is what Jesus saw when He viewed those men, INTERNALLY:

Matthew 23:27
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

That is the sight that Jesus lays upon everyone. He LOOKS internally, and sees what is "really" going on. In every person there IS an evil conscience. We all come before God in Christ, bearing this evil conscience. Heb. 10:22. People are led into deception when they think otherwise, and turn into hypocritical pharisees themselves. Happens all the time. Predictable even. Any person who is not honest in the scriptural sense can not even speak of these matters NOR can they or will they connect their own internal evil to the tempter, the devil, because they are essentially BLOCKED by that other party, and kept from making this connection.

 

[childeye]

Childeye,

May I ask you one question? When you read the verse....

My answer was a simple yes. How does that mean I am not a believer in the trinity? God is Spirit.

Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Do you see the Bible word "God" as a single entity? Also the words "is" and "him" are supplied by translation, not of part of the original Greek or Hebrew. Secondly the Hebrew does not have a word for "God", so the Hebrew rendering of this verse would be....

Elohim , a Ruwach, and they must worship Him must worship by Ruwach.

I see Elohim as the heavenly powers that flow, and the source of that power is from the Father whose powers are administrated by the Holy Spirit, is more likely the meaning of this text considering all the other Scriptures on the Family of Elohim.

Shalom

Yes I see God as a single entity even as you describe a single source of power at the Godhead, or that which is implied by the distinction of Most High. I am aware that Elohim is a plural connotation of the term God. In my limited capacity, I see nothing wrong with your view of Elohim as the heavenly powers that flow. I note that music is a single word yet refers to 12 notes or distinct tones and there are 7 natural or basic notes. White light disperses into seven frequencies of color bands while there are 3 primary colors.

 

[rthom7]

Child eye, that was a superb answer describing the single entity from which the heavenly powers flow.... have you considered why it is this way?

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Elohim is light, yet also engineers darkness, the absence of light or God, so how does Elohim sustain dysfunction without actually destroying it with His own presence?

The only way light on earth can do this is to make medium affects from light and indirect light entering and leaving media....hence a medium is required....

Thus already we require two heavenly co-eternal intelligent beings, one the Father is the source of power, and the other is required to function as a medium, magnify, diminish and make virtual, the affects of the power that flows into and out of the medium, who is known as the Holy Spirit.

Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

When Jesus spoke this, is reinforced the idea that Jesus is also a comforter for sinners dealing with salvation, and the Holy Spirit is also the second comforter for administrating the breath of salvation in sinners empowered by Jesus power and the Father's power, to those seeking eternal life with Elohim.

http://spiritualsprings.org/ss-760.htm This supplies science reasons for a medium
http://spiritualsprings.org/ss-1033.htm This gives examples of the Holy Spirit as a medium

When some see the word 'medium' they image a ghost like image, and while the Holy Spirit has in terms past been seen as a ghostlike power, that is NOT my use of the word 'medium'. A medium is a administration entity that allows light powers into and out of the medium, causing changes to the powers of the light. On earth such passive media might be air and water, but since humans change the need for function and dysfunction amounts of God's power, such a medium administrator has to be intelligent. An example of an intelligent medium administrator would be the scientist using the electron microscope.

Hope this helps to explain Elohim is a family of three co-eternal members, that use the Father's power to sustain a dysfunctional world without destroying those in it.
Shalom

 

[righteyealenna]

Whats going on in here?

 

[dadof10]

I said we do not choose freely in the moral purview, I didn't say we don't choose in the moral purview. That is because we all need God/Love to act righteously. If we could freely choose to perform righteous acts without God's Spirit willing us, then we would have free wills in the moral purview. And on the contrary side of the moral spectrum, we all have the lies of the devil and the lust of the flesh warring against what is the good that God would have us do. So yes I believe this man would be enabled to choose to let go of his possessions gladly, if he had the Truth of God and was convinced by it.

Again, there is only a free will choice, or coercion. Either the man FREELY chooses to "let go" or he is forced to. Where you err, is you are taking a truth and stretching it to untenable lengths. Certainly it is true that if a man's soul is in a state of Grace, he will be more likely to do what's right. It is not true that man can become sinless in this life. As a person becomes closer to Christ, he sins less. By the same token, if he rejects Christ, he is more likely to sin.

While I think it is true that they probably thought this way about the rich person being favored by God, it still remains that only God can save a man. And also, that it is difficult for the rich person to enter in to the Kingdom of God. For it requires that a person share of their abundance with those who are without making him no longer rich. Hence the Gospel is good tidings for the poor. Only a Love/empathy greater than one's carnal self can accomplish this.

Agreed, well put.

Cooperating with grace is not free will. Why? Because free will is an equivocation, which means that even if he doesn't cooperate with grace, that is going to be called free will anyway.

And in your view, no matter what the situation, free will is going to be denied, even if it is a fact that a person goes against his conscience. Free will is not an equivocation because it puts the onus on the person for his sin. Your view, on the other hand, can't even answer a simple yes or no question without "semantics" and flat out gobbledygook.

.

I like your questions as they are well pointed. I appreciate that, so I need you to try to understand what I mean, when I say that there are semantics in our language, which I can't always account for without blowing a blood vessel somewhere in my thinker.

For example, this statement, "no one does what they don't want to do". It is ripe for semantic confusion.

You are the one who is making this point, so you only have yourself to blame for your headaches. If there is any "semantic confusion" (equivocation) it is coming from you. You made the point earlier, and even said (I can go back and find the exact quote) something like: "You have still to answer how a person can do something they don't desire." When there is a Biblical example of a person who desires to follow Jesus, and goes against this desire because he freely chooses self over Jesus (which is the reason for the "sadness") you start in with gobbledygook. Case in point...

Did Jesus want to die on the cross? No he didn't, but yes, he did. How do we reconcile this as either he did or he didn't do what he wanted to? When there is a battle happening inside of a person, over what he will or will not do in any moral/immoral context, we are witnessing a battle over the will of that person being waged on a spiritual battlefield. So in that place of battle where a decision to do what we know is right is necessary, but is yet not a desirable thing to do, it is possible to accurately say that this person has two competing desires at once. So also do we see this happening here in this tale of the rich man. As it is also in ourselves, it is the carnal desire that is in conflict, with what empathy for others would have us do.

Huh? So if we have "two competing desires at once", who ultimately makes the decision? If a person's conscience is pulling him one way and his "carnal desires" are pulling him the other, who decides which way he goes? At this point, he is either free to choose which way he will go, or he is forced to go one way, there is no third option. And here comes the "semantic confusion" charge...

Concerning the conscience. I think this man was perfectly fine in his conscience up until the point where Jesus said he must part with his possessions if he wants to be perfect. You're right, he doesn't scoff, because something In Jesus' words tells him, what he knows deep down in his soul is true, and now there is a dilemma in his conscience.

How can there possibly be a "dilemma in his conscience" if he will choose based on his "image of God"? There should be no "dilemma" or no "going against his conscience" or no "sadness", if we are made as you say. He would just choose based on this "image", then happily go on his way. At least that's what you have been describing up to this point.

You have also said, that it was commonly thought that the rich person was favored by God, and presumably the poor person is not. Likewise the weak and infirm were despised and even considered accursed by god, which brings to mind this scripture, John 9:1. Therefore we have a worldly image of god by which we have a worldly wisdom, which is why the rich man is perfectly fine in his conscience until the True Image of God, Jesus, challenges that prior belief.

Right, that's what I said.

So why is this man sad and not scoffing if he has a false image of god at the helm of his conscience? Because despite any false imagery of god manufactured in our imaginations, God is still the Creator of mankind, and He is, and has always been the Light and Life of every man's soul. His reality is greater than our imaginations. Or as 1 Corinthians 1:25 says 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1 Corinthians 1:21, 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Again, there would be no "sadness" if he didn't freely choose wrong, according to his conscience. He knows what he should do, but freely chooses self over Jesus, hence the sadness. He (and all of us) are given choices every day. We can either reject Jesus and choose self, or reject self and choose to follow Jesus. The state of our soul is what animates our consciences and drives our choices. We can still go against our consciences, which is the definition of free will.