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

[dadof10]

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

You said we can "be equal" to Jesus. If Jesus is God, this means we can be equal to God. Do you believe this? Can we become Gods?

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.

Did you choose to actually commit the sins that you committed? Were you responsible for the sinful actions you performed? Now, I'm not talking about your "original sin" or, in your "semantics", your "inborn false image of god". I'm talking about the ACTUAL SINS THAT YOU COMMITTED. Are you responsible for these?

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.

Why would Satan deceive me into thinking that I have free will and am responsible for my own sins? Why would he lie about something that leads to repentance? If anything is an equivocation that comes from Satan, it's the view that we are not responsible for our sins and so, don't need repentance. Why would I repent for sins that I couldn't help but commit because of an inborn "false image of god", that I never asked for in the first place? The free will view screams for us to change our lives because, if we don't, we will be cut off from the Body of Christ. Your view meekly says "hey, don't worry about all those past sins, you couldn't help it". Which sounds more demonic to you?

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.

Then just explain why people go against their consciences, yet aren't free to do so. Either they are forced, or they choose. There is no third option.

 

[dadof10]

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

None of this explains how demons are organically (naturally part of) residing within man, yet they can be cast out, nor does it explain the description of a man who has no demons (Luke 11:24). How can demons' natural state be within man, when Scripture says they can be cast out?

 

[smaller]

None of this explains how demons are organically (naturally part of) residing within man, yet they can be cast out, nor does it explain the description of a man who has no demons (Luke 11:24). How can demons' natural state be within man, when Scripture says they can be cast out?

When you look upon any person not of faith, look at them with the Eyes of God, and see that the blinder is upon their minds. They are not free, but slaves. 2 Cor. 4:4.

Obviously satan and his messengers are "within" man, if they were and can be 'cast out' of same. They can also be hardened and locked into any man, particularly religious people who can not discern them, and think they are entirely holy and free minded in this present, vile body, that is subject to temptations, the evil conscience, and sin. Romans 7:7-13 Romans 7:17-21, 2 Cor. 12:7, 1 Tim. 1:15 1 John 1:8 1 John 3:8 Heb.10:22 all show our "real" present state of affairs, within. Yet we also know that our Savior is with us and within us, to help us DIVIDE.

Perhaps looking within, where the real problems reside, is beneficial sight? I believe it is so. When viewing there, we will find one saved, and one damned.

The parties who are damned are not fond of THE LIGHT OF GOD in Christ being shed upon them, therein.

 

[WIP]

Reminder:

• Subsequent responses either opposing or adding additional information should include references to specific supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation of the member's understanding of how that scripture applies.

 

[dadof10]

When you look upon any person not of faith, look at them with the Eyes of God, and see that the blinder is upon their minds. They are not free, but slaves. 2 Cor. 4:4.

Obviously satan and his messengers are "within" man, if they were and can be 'cast out' of same. They can also be hardened and locked into any man, particularly religious people who can not discern them, and think they are entirely holy and free minded in this present, vile body, that is subject to temptations, the evil conscience, and sin. Romans 7:7-13 Romans 7:17-21, 2 Cor. 12:7, 1 Tim. 1:15 1 John 1:8 1 John 3:8 Heb.10:22 all show our "real" present state of affairs, within. Yet we also know that our Savior is with us and within us, to help us DIVIDE.

Perhaps looking within, where the real problems reside, is beneficial sight? I believe it is so. When viewing there, we will find one saved, and one damned.

The parties who are damned are not fond of THE LIGHT OF GOD in Christ being shed upon them, therein.

Ok, so are there certain people who have NO demons inside and certain people who have more than one? Since they can be "cast out" by men, how do they get back in there? Are they invited and "locked in" by the person?

 

[smaller]

Ok, so are there certain people who have NO demons inside and certain people who have more than one? Since they can be "cast out" by men, how do they get back in there? Are they invited and "locked in" by the person?

Jesus showed us what happens where the Word is sown. Mark 4:15

Jesus showed us what happened, where the Word was sown, in the temple leaders of His day: John 8:44, a direct outcome of Mark 4:15

Paul saw these identical matters for himself, and stepped up his game, above his internal adversary: 2 Cor. 12:7 leading him to conclude Romans 6:12 was 'the rule.'

We are saved by faith in Christ, through His Grace, alone, because of this continuing fact:

Galatians 5:17
For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

No one walks only in one or the other, but in the continuation of this contrariness.

 

[dadof10]

Jesus showed us what happens where the Word is sown. Mark 4:15

Jesus showed us what happened, where the Word was sown, in the temple leaders of His day: John 8:44, a direct outcome of Mark 4:15

Paul saw these identical matters for himself, and stepped up his game, above his internal adversary: 2 Cor. 12:7 leading him to conclude Romans 6:12 was 'the rule.'

We are saved by faith in Christ, through His Grace, alone, because of this continuing fact:

Galatians 5:17
For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

No one walks only in one or the other, but in the continuation of this contrariness.

You keep repeating the same thing. My questions are: "are there certain people who have NO demons inside and certain people who have more than one? Since they can be "cast out" by men, how do they get back in there? Are they invited and "locked in" by the person?"

How do they get in and out? Are they invited in, are they there from birth? Obviously they can be exorcised out. So, then there are people with none inside of them, right? So, do they just go in and out at will, or do people have to LET them in and cast them out? Is this going in and out done by the will of the person or the will of the demon? I'm just trying to understand your view.

 

[smaller]

You keep repeating the same thing. My questions are: "are there certain people who have NO demons inside and certain people who have more than one?

As do you. This is scriptural solid ground. We all "have sin" and "sin" is in fact of the devil. Do the math however you please from there. No one was promised "sinless" flesh in the Gospels anywhere, and yes, this is contrary to "works for salvation" (Edited, ToS 2.4, trolling and belittling comment. Obadiah)
1 John 1:8, 1 John 3:8

 

[dadof10]

As do you. This is scriptural solid ground. We all "have sin" and "sin" is in fact of the devil. Do the math however you please from there. No one was promised "sinless" flesh in the Gospels anywhere, and yes, this is contrary to "works for salvation" (Edited, ToS 2.4, trolling and belittling comment. Obadiah)

1 John 1:8, 1 John 3:8

This is why I'm asking, you seem inconsistent. You say "We all "have sin" and "sin" is in fact of the devil." But isn't there a Scriptural example of someone who has NO DEMONS INSIDE?

"“When an impure spirit comes out of a person, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’25 When it arrives, it finds the house swept clean and put in order."

(As per the administrators request above, you must follow the guidelines of this forum to post here. In particular: "Subsequent responses either opposing or adding additional information should include references to specific supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation of the member's understanding of how that scripture applies." Please note and follow the highlighted portions as well as the rest of the forum guidelines which are posted here for everyone to be able to read. "Referencing" means citing the exact chapter and verse as well as the version you are quoting (NIV, NASB, etc). Simply quoting scripture without the reference does not satisfy the guidelines of this particular forum. Obadiah)

Unless you believe there is still demons in there who are doing the cleaning, we have a situation where there are no demons inside this person. So, how can you say "No one was promised "sinless" flesh in the Gospels anywhere," when you believe that absence of demons is absence of sin? It seems logical that if the demon leaves, sin leaves with it and we have a sinless person.

Also, I would like to know how the demons come and go. If they can just come and go as they please, that contradicts Scripture that says humans can cast out demons. However, if you say they are invited in and exorcised by people, that contradicts your view of free will.

 

[Obadiah]

Temporarily closed for review.

 

[Obadiah]

Thread re-opened.

 

[dadof10]

My biblical reference is Luke 11:24-25 NIV. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[childeye]

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?

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

Your post was very informative. I have never heard of the term medium being described in a mechanical process, but it appears quite plausible in it's application. I don't think that the use of the Father's power to sustain a dysfunctional world without destroying it, is the end all say all of why it is this way. Why? Because I believe the power of the Father, is the knowledge of Who He is as a Person and the understanding of how the created being is corrupted through vanity. Romans 8:20. Hence I would also think that everything is orchestrated so as to create the conditions to reveal this knowledge through a temporal existance. For example, a light is best appreciated when presented in the midst of darkness rather than in the noon day sun. Matthew 22:8, Matthew 22:10.

 

[childeye]

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.

But free will is an equivocation in the moral purview, claiming freedom from two opposite powers at once. Hence you will assert that the man isn't forced to "let go" by God, even though God is Love, even while you will also assert that he isn't forced to not let go by his carnal Love of possessions. The truth is, by circumstance alone, he is going to be forced to do one or the other. It's a choice he doesn't volunteer to make but he will make it nonetheless. That's why Christ's words are a two-edged sword that are judgment. For if you are not for him, you are against him. In regards to the decision making process, it is a faith issue that is very hard for a rich man, and no contest for the poor man.

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 can't help it that there are semantics. I didn't invent language. I don't deny free will exists outside of the moral purview. Going against one's conscience has nothing to do with it, since the conscience is governed by what we believe to be true. Paul persecuted Christians without violating his conscience.
.

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...

Hey, you asked for an explanation, so I complied. Yes I made the point which still stands true, despite the fact that a person can have internal conflicts between two opposing desires.

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...

Actually, the semantics are already addressed. The person will ultimately have to choose between two competing desires despite any claim that mankind is not forced to morally choose anything. Free will is an equivocation which is no different than a place of indecision, or serving two masters. He won't be considered forced to choose anything in free will theology because of this equivocating back and forth. Matthew 6:24. Christ puts this free will back and forth to an end, and we either are revealed to be his friend in truth, or his enemy. Matthew 22:44.

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.

There are two images of god/God competing in his conscience. That is why there is a dilemma. 2 Corinthians 4:4.

Right, that's what I said.

Yes, in essence we do agree.

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.

I notice how you describe the self only in terms of opposition to Christ. It all comes down to who we identify our self with. Why can't serving Christ be serving ourselves? If the rich man saw this, he would not think he was losing anything and be saddened by it, but rather, he would be glad because he would be gaining all the more. That is why I posted this scripture. Matthew 19:29 29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

Now yes, this means we can either reject Christ, thinking we are best served by doing so, or we can trust Christ thinking we are best served by doing so. Since free will is an ambiguous term, this is also going to be what you mean by free will. Should we trust him or not? I think faith is essential here. Is he Christ or not, is essentially the same question. Everyone would have to have an equal ability to believe for this free will to exist. Yet the Gospel is good news to the poor and not to the rich. James 2:5. Matthew 19:30. John 9:39.

 

[childeye]

You said we can "be equal" to Jesus. If Jesus is God, this means we can be equal to God. Do you believe this? Can we become Gods?

Yes. I believe we were made in the image of God in the first place, as per Adam's countenance before the fall. I believe belief in Jesus quickens this now after the fall. Psalm 82:6.

Did you choose to actually commit the sins that you committed? Were you responsible for the sinful actions you performed? Now, I'm not talking about your "original sin" or, in your "semantics", your "inborn false image of god". I'm talking about the ACTUAL SINS THAT YOU COMMITTED. Are you responsible for these?

If you're going to exclude any original sinful tendencies passed down by my parents, and any false image of god through which I only condemn myself and others in lust for power, then I am not sure how to answer. After all, How would I know or be able to tell what I am responsible for in the sense that I could have prevented it?

I will say that my lust is not a choice. You might assert that we can choose to not give in to lust, and then surmise that lust is therefore voluntary. But that is a conclusion based on an assertion. The True Image of God, Christ in me, is what actually enables me to overcome lust and walk in Godliness, even because the lies that lust are based upon, are brought into the light through him.

16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:
He appeared in the flesh,
was vindicated by the Spirit,[d]
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.

Why would Satan deceive me into thinking that I have free will and am responsible for my own sins? Why would he lie about something that leads to repentance?

Satan wants us to feel personal guilt and also cast personal blame in hypocrisy, that's the reason why. In contrast, Jesus, who was innocent, gave his life for this very purpose, to put away guilt and to forgive sins, not to make people guilty and cast blame.

Moreover, the true reason behind why we should take responsibility for our actions is so as to not hurt others, not so as to avoid a feeling of personal guilt and thereby also cast personal blame. We need to forbear with other's sin, even as we don't take our own sinful actions lightly.

Besides, free will doesn't lead anyone to repentance. Remember, it's an equivocation, so that it can be claimed that free will also leads to not repenting and sinning.

If anything is an equivocation that comes from Satan, it's the view that we are not responsible for our sins and so, don't need repentance.

Satan is the accuser and tempter of mankind. To tempt us, Satan must claim that we are self determined through the knowledge of good and evil, and therefore we don't need God to tell us what to do with our lives. Isaiah 64:6. To accuse us, he must claim that since we are self determined through the knowledge of good and evil, we all therefore sin voluntarily. Revelations 12:10.

Why would I repent for sins that I couldn't help but commit because of an inborn "false image of god", that I never asked for in the first place?

First off I want to be clear that I'm not sure this false image is inborn or not.

Having said that, I want you to know that I believe we have a will with which we do repent. For repentance means 'to turn around your will', as in "you're going the wrong way", following after a false image of god. A false righteousness is like chasing the moon, when the True Light is actually the other way. Romans 3:22.

Moreover, true repentance requires caring that our sins have hurt others, so that we are truly sorry. And there is no true sorrow if we purposefully did it to hurt people in the first place. So that's the reason why we should repent, because we are going the wrong way in serving a false god, and hurting others in doing so. Love, which is the Eternal Spirit seen in the True image of God, is what inspires a true repentance, not a free will which is an equivocation and implies moral independence from God. Romans 2:4. 2 Timothy 2:25-26.

The free will view screams for us to change our lives because, if we don't, we will be cut off from the Body of Christ. Your view meekly says "hey, don't worry about all those past sins, you couldn't help it". Which sounds more demonic to you?

Since free will is an equivocation working in the mind, it will therefore be screaming both to change our lives of our own will power or don't change our lives of our own will power. So it screams unintelligibly. Free will claims both repentance and non-repentance are freely made choices. What is really more important is to know how and why to change our lives. Luke 16:8.

Yes, a non-freewill view says don't worry about my past sins, and also forgive all those who trespass against me, because God knows our weakness and the infirmity in that we did them; And also He knows our blindness in that we also blamed others, in a hypocritical reasoning, adding iniquity to iniquity. John 9:41. Matthew 15:14. So I don't blame others as if they could help their weakness anymore than I. Is that demonic? For God will judge us according to how we judge others. Matthew 7:1. And as for future sins, there's a Spirit of Truth, that will guide me in all Truth called the Holy Ghost, and He is greater than Satan's lies.

Then just explain why people go against their consciences, yet aren't free to do so. Either they are forced, or they choose. There is no third option.

This is a trick question. Why? Because hypocrites don't have a properly working conscience anyway. Therefore they are free from righteousness but not free from sin. John 8:9.

 

[dadof10]

But free will is an equivocation in the moral purview, claiming freedom from two opposite powers at once.

Equivocation means "the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication." I can have "freedom from two opposite powers at once", while not using ambiguous language or trying to conceal a truth. You do it outside the vague "moral purview". Is this an equivocation?

Hence you will assert that the man isn't forced to "let go" by God, even though God is Love, even while you will also assert that he isn't forced to not let go by his carnal Love of possessions. The truth is, by circumstance alone, he is going to be forced to do one or the other.

Choosing between two things is being forced by circumstances ALONE? Explain how we are free to choose between two options outside the "moral purview", yet not within it. If "circumstances alone" force an action, how is this different outside the "moral purview"? Sounds like equivocation to me.

It's a choice he doesn't volunteer to make but he will make it nonetheless.

LOL...You mean most of the choices each of us make daily?

I can't help it that there are semantics. I didn't invent language. I don't deny free will exists outside of the moral purview. Going against one's conscience has nothing to do with it, since the conscience is governed by what we believe to be true.

Why was the Rich Man sad then if he was only following what he believed to he true? Because he freely chose wrong and his conscience was bothering him. He had the choice between following Jesus or keeping his things. He felt the tug to do the right thing, but chose the wrong thing. There is no other way to explain the sadness.

Paul persecuted Christians without violating his conscience.

I don't think either one of us is qualified to judge Paul's (or anyone else's) conscience. Scripture doesn't say either way. The fact is, Scripture does describe the Rich man violating his conscience, because he went away sad.
.

Hey, you asked for an explanation, so I complied. Yes I made the point which still stands true, despite the fact that a person can have internal conflicts between two opposing desires.

This totally contradicts what you have repeatedly said throughout this thread. The "point" you are referring to is that a person doesn't go against his desires.

"I believe we have wills that choose according to the desires within us. I believe the desires within us are dependent on the spiritual content of the soul. I believe the spiritual content of the soul is dependent upon one's image of God/god."

Your entire point here has been that we only do what we desire. If we have a proper "image of God", we desire only good and so do it, even to the point of not sinning at all. If we have a "false image of god" we will not desire good and act accordingly. How can this possibly be reconciled with your statement above that "a person can have internal conflicts between two opposing desires"?

So, if there are two opposing desires in conflict within the person, who chooses the path he goes down?

Actually, the semantics are already addressed. The person will ultimately have to choose between two competing desires despite any claim that mankind is not forced to morally choose anything. Free will is an equivocation which is no different than a place of indecision, or serving two masters.

Huh? Mankind is not forced to morally choose anything? Where did I say that? [Do not make statements regarding other's character. ToS 2.4]

He won't be considered forced to choose anything in free will theology because of this equivocating back and forth. Matthew 6:24. Christ puts this free will back and forth to an end, and we either are revealed to be his friend in truth, or his enemy. Matthew 22:44.

You just got done saying above, referencing the Rich Man, in the "moral purview": "It's a choice he doesn't volunteer to make but he will make it nonetheless." In free will theology I would say, he was forced to make a choice between two competing desires, and he made it freely. He made the choice and now has to live with it. Where is there "equivocating back and forth" here?

There are two images of god/God competing in his conscience. That is why there is a dilemma. 2 Corinthians 4:4.

Two competing desires, two competing "images". Who decides the course of action? Obviously we can't rely on the "image" or the "desire" alone (which is what you have repeatedly said here), because there are two that are in opposition. How would a man solve this dilemma if not with a free will choice?

I notice how you describe the self only in terms of opposition to Christ. It all comes down to who we identify our self with. Why can't serving Christ be serving ourselves?

Please. The topic at hand is free will and sin, not consistency with Christ. If a man and his wife desire each other sexually, the man's desire and Christ's desire are consistent. Same with a hungry man who goes out and gets a nice dinner, or a man who goes out with a friend for a beer. In all these cases the man is not violating his conscience, and his desires (self will) are totally consistent with God's. However, if the man desires another woman or becomes a glutton or a drunkard, his self will is in conflict with God's will and the conscience is violated. We can serve God and ourselves also, but WE are the ones who choose, not some "image" or "desire" within us. As you have said, they are competing, so someone has to choose between them.

Now yes, this means we can either reject Christ, thinking we are best served by doing so, or we can trust Christ thinking we are best served by doing so.

If this were true, there would be no "violation of conscience", a person would simply think he is "best served" by rejecting Truth. Again, the Rich Man would have walked away and scoffed instead of being sad.

Since free will is an ambiguous term, this is also going to be what you mean by free will.

Free will decisions don't just take into consideration what "best serves" me personally. There are many factors that go into my decisions. They aren't always selfish.

Should we trust him or not? I think faith is essential here. Is he Christ or not, is essentially the same question. Everyone would have to have an equal ability to believe for this free will to exist.

So, the fact that everyone does not receive an "equal" share of Grace somehow disproves free will? Really? We are talking about free will, not fairness. We each act freely within the framework of the Grace we are given. Why would everything have to be equal for there to be free will?

 

[dadof10]

Yes. I believe we were made in the image of God in the first place, as per Adam's countenance before the fall. I believe belief in Jesus quickens this now after the fall. Psalm 82:6.

If you're going to exclude any original sinful tendencies passed down by my parents, and any false image of god through which I only condemn myself and others in lust for power, then I am not sure how to answer. After all, How would I know or be able to tell what I am responsible for in the sense that I could have prevented it?

I will say that my lust is not a choice. You might assert that we can choose to not give in to lust, and then surmise that lust is therefore voluntary. But that is a conclusion based on an assertion. The True Image of God, Christ in me, is what actually enables me to overcome lust and walk in Godliness, even because the lies that lust are based upon, are brought into the light through him.

16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:
He appeared in the flesh,
was vindicated by the Spirit,[d]
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.


Satan wants us to feel personal guilt and also cast personal blame in hypocrisy, that's the reason why. In contrast, Jesus, who was innocent, gave his life for this very purpose, to put away guilt and to forgive sins, not to make people guilty and cast blame.

Moreover, the true reason behind why we should take responsibility for our actions is so as to not hurt others, not so as to avoid a feeling of personal guilt and thereby also cast personal blame. We need to forbear with other's sin, even as we don't take our own sinful actions lightly.

Besides, free will doesn't lead anyone to repentance. Remember, it's an equivocation, so that it can be claimed that free will also leads to not repenting and sinning. Satan is the accuser and tempter of mankind. To tempt us, Satan must claim that we are self determined through the knowledge of good and evil, and therefore we don't need God to tell us what to do with our lives. Isaiah 64:6. To accuse us, he must claim that since we are self determined through the knowledge of good and evil, we all therefore sin voluntarily. Revelations 12:10. First off I want to be clear that I'm not sure this false image is inborn or not.

Having said that, I want you to know that I believe we have a will with which we do repent. For repentance means 'to turn around your will', as in "you're going the wrong way", following after a false image of god. A false righteousness is like chasing the moon, when the True Light is actually the other way. Romans 3:22.

Moreover, true repentance requires caring that our sins have hurt others, so that we are truly sorry. And there is no true sorrow if we purposefully did it to hurt people in the first place. So that's the reason why we should repent, because we are going the wrong way in serving a false god, and hurting others in doing so. Love, which is the Eternal Spirit seen in the True image of God, is what inspires a true repentance, not a free will which is an equivocation and implies moral independence from God. Romans 2:4. 2 Timothy 2:25-26.

Since free will is an equivocation working in the mind, it will therefore be screaming both to change our lives of our own will power or don't change our lives of our own will power. So it screams unintelligibly. Free will claims both repentance and non-repentance are freely made choices. What is really more important is to know how and why to change our lives. Luke 16:8.

Yes, a non-freewill view says don't worry about my past sins, and also forgive all those who trespass against me, because God knows our weakness and the infirmity in that we did them; And also He knows our blindness in that we also blamed others, in a hypocritical reasoning, adding iniquity to iniquity. John 9:41. Matthew 15:14. So I don't blame others as if they could help their weakness anymore than I. Is that demonic? For God will judge us according to how we judge others. Matthew 7:1. And as for future sins, there's a Spirit of Truth, that will guide me in all Truth called the Holy Ghost, and He is greater than Satan's lies.


This is a trick question. Why? Because hypocrites don't have a properly working conscience anyway. Therefore they are free from righteousness but not free from sin. John 8:9.

This is mostly just rehashing the above post. I would like to get more clarity on your assent to my statement that we can become Gods. What do you mean? In my view, God is the Uncreated from which all existence comes. He is Existence Itself. How can a creature like me be equal to Him?

 

[smaller]

Satan is the accuser and tempter of mankind. To tempt us, Satan must claim that we are self determined through the knowledge of good and evil, and therefore we don't need God to tell us what to do with our lives. Isaiah 64:6. To accuse us, he must claim that since we are self determined through the knowledge of good and evil, we all therefore sin voluntarily. Revelations 12:10.

I endorse the above sight. Some believers see the factual internal workings of sin for what they really are. 1 John 3:8 "sin is of the devil" who will NEVER be legal or under Grace.

The foundation of Grace is that it is unmerited in ANY way of us or of ourselves. Grace can not be merited in any way. It never was and never will be, because Grace is SOLELY Delivered by God in Christ, as His Eternal Attribute. No man "takes it" from Him by their merit.

We do NOT love our lives in this present vile state, precisely because of the workings of sin in conjunction with the tempter.

Rev. 12
11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and ->they loved not their lives<- unto the death.

 

[rthom7]

Child eye, thanks for your reply...please read my links to Science studies on light, relationships to sinning, shining in darkness make light show up better, is a nice and correct statement of yours....

When light enters a medium, it's powers are changed and modified, diminished magnified and made virtual, hence the Father can sustain a world of dysfunction without destroying it with His direct presence, but this requires a medium to function independently and intelligently ( the Holy Spirit) so such powers can work, despite our evil world.

I wish you well in your studies with GOD, blessings to your ministries with Him and others....Shalom

 

[childeye]

Equivocation means "the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication." I can have "freedom from two opposite powers at once", while not using ambiguous language or trying to conceal a truth.

Okay, so you agree that the definition of an equivocation is the use of ambiguous language to avoid committing one's self. How is it then, that you can claim to not be equivocating, when you say we have freedom from two opposing powers at once? The word 'free' is an ambiguous terminology. It is no different than me saying that I am a slave to two opposing powers at the same time, while it imagines that this happens according to my discretion. Hence you are using a term 'free will', to show that you are not committed to one or the other which is the very definition of an equivocation. This term free will is therefore concealing a Truth and is therefore a lie. That Truth is that no one can be both for and against Christ at the same time. You are either for him or against him.
Matthew 12:30King James Version (KJV)
30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

I'm not saying that you intentionally and knowingly are concealing this Truth. I am saying that Satan uses free will to deceive people.