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

[childeye]

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

Thank you for your blessings, and blessings to you and all whom you pray for through Jesus Christ our Lord.

I visited your website. I find the theological approach there to be refreshing, and I also now have a better understanding of your terminology. I found many interesting perspectives in the science studies on light and relationships to sinning. Respectfully, the approach is sound, and an obstacle to superstition. Yet I know that they are incomplete. Not to imply that comprehending God is ever complete, but rather to say that I believe you will progress well in contemplating God.

With that in mind, I would like to express some thoughts that occur to me. If God is assumed to be a stationary source of Light, then an intelligent medium would either be movable in relation to distance between God and man, or able to change focus through a flexible lens such as the human eye. Regardless of which way this intelligent medium works, I would humbly submit that it might be useful to contemplate the identify of the powers that would determine the focus, as the two perspectives from the inferences perceived in the terms Father and Son, which the Holy Spirit testifies to.
Hence the term trinity is derived. It was this word 'trinity', I believe, that prompted your first post to me personally. 1 John 5:7. 1 Corinthians 2:13. John 16:13.

 

[childeye]

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.

The use of Revelations 12:11 to finish your thoughts is quite compelling. While I agree that sin is of the devil and will never be legal, I have always seen him as a legalist. I would therefore think that mercy is without any rationale in his view. Job 1:11, Job 2:5.

 

[smaller]

The use of Revelations 12:11 to finish your thoughts is quite compelling. While I agree that sin is of the devil and will never be legal, I have always seen him as a legalist. I would therefore think that mercy is without any rationale in his view. Job 1:11, Job 2:5.

Well, absolutely that is true! Jesus Himself, and Satan, had between themselves a very interesting little debate about Gods Words, didn't they? If Jesus did, then WHY would we be exempted from having that same debate with Satan? This is part of the reason we wrestle so hard with the Word, knowing that He/The Word is IN OUR BEHALVES. Yet we fail to consider that the SAME WORD that saves us, does CONDEMN Satan in opposite fashions. And Satan uses and abuses The Word, no differently today, than in Jesus' Days. And did so primarily where? Uh, that would be IN THE PRIESTHOOD. They were the first standing in the line of fire. John 8:44 shows this openly to be the case, and it is directly correlated to Mark 4:15 and all the other seed parables that show the entrance of the tempter, the thief INTO the hearts of MAN. It is on this basis that NO MAN is legal. Yet we, as believers WILL LIVE by Every Word, according to the LIFE Dictates of Jesus. Matt. 4:4, Luke 4:4 The DIRE Words of God in Christ are to be directed to our own adversary, within. This is how the Word is to be 'divided.' We've all been waaayyyy to busy beating ourselves up as believers and totally ignoring the role of the adversary(s) in these matters.

The power of Satan's automatic resistance comes from the Law, and Satan in man, in the manners of internal temptations, which ARE of the Tempter, which FEW can fess up to truthfully having to deal with within as a foreign agent to themselves as believers, as Paul did, is compelled to violate the law via temptation/evil thoughts within MAN. Mark 4:15, Romans 7:7-13, 1 Cor. 15:56 ALL show that the power of SIN stems from the law, and since every sin is in fact of the "devil" 1 John 3:8, that is exactly where his "resisting power" IN MAN, comes from, from the LAW. We also know for example that the law is for the lawless. We might certainly consider Satan and his minions to be utterly lawless. And yes, these bad actors are compelled by the law in all ways, adverse.

It's one of the most difficult Divine Paradoxes to come into understanding with. The Same Word that heaps upon us ABUNDANT LIFE is simultaneously AGAINST the tempter in our own flesh.

I might call it God in Christ as both Friend and Foe quotients. None of us are "naturally" inclined to view ourselves in the latter LIGHT, but that LIGHT is also extremely beneficial to us as believers. It is the error of the blinder of the minds/hearts that causes us to see these as "personally" not beneficial when His Words are ENTIRELY beneficial, also, to us, on the adverse side of the ledgers because HE IS against Satan, the tempter, in "our temples."

It is exactly on this ground that we await our NEW Temple, His Perfected Body.

Anyone who tries to shed only the nice stuff of the Word on themselves and justify the entirety of themselves, really has no idea WHY the body of flesh is vile, dishonorable, corrupt and weak, and subject, therefore to death. These conditions are all because of the "real" temple violators, the devil and his messengers. Most of us sit here, continuing to justify "those workers" where there is no justifications in sight for any of THEM.

 

[childeye]

You do it outside the vague "moral purview". Is this an equivocation?

I don't see the point of discussing the subject of free will outside the moral purview, because choosing between ice cream flavors is not a matter of being deceived or enlightened as to which way is life.

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 not really any different, hence I understand your claim of it being equivocating. But when I said forced by circumstance alone, I meant it is inevitable and not voluntary. I was not meaning to imply that there are no other forces that compel or restrain a man's will as part of those circumstances. Dealing with the term free will outside of the moral purview becomes too complicated since there are not two powers that are competing. There can be many flavors of ice cream to choose from.

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

Indeed every moment of life is a choice happening. That is why the term 'will' is a living entity.

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.

Scripture doesn't say he made a definitive choice. I think he was sad because he saw that he was not as rich as he thought. The riches which had made him happy were now a source of sorrow. I think he saw that he was farther from perfection than the poor were.

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.

Empathy enables me to put myself in Paul's shoes. It's self evident to see that Paul/Saul thought he was doing the right thing when persecuting Christ. It therefore follows that we also can do the wrong thing while thinking we are doing what is right according to our conscience. That means the conscience is not a source of Truth but rather works on what the mind perceives to be true.

Hence Jesus says that the eyes are the lamp of the soul, not the conscience is the Lamp of the soul. Matthew 6:22. Hence any false image of god that is believed upon as true, is a false light, Matthew 6:23,. And it defiles both the mind and the conscience. Titus 1:15. Therefore the word 'violates' when referring to the conscience is relative to one's image of god/God.

As for the rich man, he was perfectly happy being rich, which means he was fine in his conscience before Christ spoke, just as Saul/Paul was perfectly fine in his conscience persecuting Christ, until he found out that Christ is in himself.
.

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.

It appears as a contradiction, but it is not. The problem is that when there are two opposing images of God/god, semantic confusion occurs since all terms reverse meaning. Hence when I said a person doesn't go against their desire I am referring to a single desire. But if there are two opposing images of God/god, then the person has two opposing desires. In which case they will not go against one desire, but will also go against the other.

"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"?

Because the Gospel is presenting a True image of God where a false god exists. 2 Corinthians 4:4. So when I preach the Gospel, I am preaching to people who are controlled by a false image of god, even though they think they have free wills and make their moral choices accordingly.

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

I believe that when Christ is revealed as that which is already at the core of our will from creation, then the desire to choose Christ in opposition to the flesh, is inevitable. Galatians 1:15-16.
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

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 is no equivocating back and forth in this single decision as you have described it. My contention with what you are describing is that you say "he made it freely". No consideration is given that blindness was removed, which enabled the person to see that he was deceived into serving powers against his own interests. The blindness was removed to see that what he thought was doing right was in reality doing wrong.

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?

Through revelation of the Christ as per Galatians 1:15-16. It's not by flesh and blood.
Matthew 16:17.

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.

How can anyone choose against what they would choose? By being deceived.

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.

But it is true. Saul would be violating his conscience if he didn't persecute Christ. But after being shown that Christ is in him, then his conscience was violated by persecuting Christ.

So, the fact that everyone does not receive an "equal" share of Grace somehow disproves free will? Really?

I didn't say grace, I said faith.

We are talking about free will, not fairness.

I didn't mention fairness.

We each act freely within the framework of the Grace we are given.

Of course our freedom is dependent upon grace not free will.

Why would everything have to be equal for there to be free will?

Because, then men could say it was I that chose God, and not God who chose me. John 15:16.

 

[dadof10]

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?

Because we live in time and are fallible human beings. Because I fall someTIMEs doesn't mean I'm rejecting Christ and am following Satan. I choose Christ and do my best to totally trust in Him, but I fall short and someTIMEs choose self over God, due to my inborn sinful nature (concupiscence). I believe that the rule of law is a good thing and do my best to follow the rules of the road, but sometimes I speed because it benefits me, personally. Because I speed, on occasion (ahem...), doesn't mean I've become an Anarchist. It just means I'm CHOOSING to break the law for my own selfish benefit at a certain point in time. It's the same in the "moral purview", to use your language. I desire to totally serve Christ, but I fall short. As you said in the previous post, I am pulled by two conflicting desires, the desire to serve Christ and my own selfish desire. I must choose, all throughout the day (in time) which desire I will follow.

The word 'free' is an ambiguous terminology.

No, it's really not, unless you try to make it so. We can define it and remove any ambiguity if you want to.

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.

I think this is where we are talking by each other. A person can't hold two contradictory positions at the same time, however he can say that he is a follower of Christ, but at times, he gets weak and falls into sin. This is far from ambiguous because the person is not totally rejecting Christ by his weakness anymore a disobedient child is totally rejecting his mother for another woman if he gets selfish.

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.

Jesus also said: "Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us. For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ, will by no means lose his reward." (Mk. 9:39-41 RSV)
The verse you posted above says that we must make a choice for Jesus, the verse I posted says that as long as we don't reject Him outright, we will still be "for Him". Both verses assume a willful choice, because that is what true love is, a choice.
Really Childeye, this is a road we have already been down, the first day if I remember correctly. Your response was something like:

A person will only do what he desires, so if his image of God is proper, he will refrain from sin and only follow God because this is what he desires. It is not a free will choice, it is our singular desire that drives our actions. If we desire God, we will not sin, if we don't, we will.

You then said, rightly, that we have conflicting desires. Where we are now, is you have to explain who makes the decision which path to take when confronted with these desires, and how having a singular desire that drives a person's actions and "two conflicting desires" that must be chosen between before acting, is not an equivocation in itself.

 

[rthom7]

ChildEye, you have a profound insight into my theory of faith, which really all faith in God is, we live in hope that the powers we try to experience lie in deepest mysteries. God bless your ministry and experience in Him.

I visited your website. I find the theological approach there to be refreshing, and I also now have a better understanding of your terminology. I found many interesting perspectives in the science studies on light and relationships to sinning. Respectfully, the approach is sound, and an obstacle to superstition. Yet I know that they are incomplete. Not to imply that comprehending God is ever complete, but rather to say that I believe you will progress well in contemplating God.

Yes all our experiences in God is a journey that is never complete...and while I read only as Scripture reveals, there is always a limitation to our faith, so that our hope in God by faith, and thus never fully understood.


With that in mind, I would like to express some thoughts that occur to me. If God is assumed to be a stationary source of Light, then an intelligent medium would either be movable in relation to distance between God and man, or able to change focus through a flexible lens such as the human eye. Regardless of which way this intelligent medium works, I would humbly submit that it might be useful to contemplate the identify of the powers that would determine the focus, as the two perspectives from the inferences perceived in the terms Father and Son, which the Holy Spirit testifies to.
Hence the term trinity is derived. It was this word 'trinity', I believe, that prompted your first post to me personally.

The way the Holy Spirit works is a mystery for Scripture reveals only so much...I find the breath of life is the Father's power administrated by the Holy Spirit in all living things...I also find the breath of salvation is a Father Son power combination also administrated by the Holy Spirit in those who choose to be saved by Jesus....Hence we have another comforter, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, as He spoke regarding helping those who believe to experience heavenly powers without fainting...

Yes the Holy Spirit must be able to change focus, should man do missing, and thus a passive medium would not be able to cope with sustaining dysfunction without killing those sustained by such powers of good and evil...not that God is a source of evil, but if we humans choose to walk away from God, such a decision must be sustained by God, in order for us to perceive our decision...hence an active intelligent medium is required...
An electron microscope is my only natural example of how a living being controls the focus of powers.

What I find interesting is the covered shadows (pre-umbra missing) a believer experiences increases once connected to our Saviour;... hence we feel a chief of sinners...even though our wilful sinning becomes less...such an experience is demonstrated by science, maths and light ray diagrams. So I am glad you found the website useful in this regard.

I know you do not see the Holy Spirit as a co-eternal Being, there are some with theories of faith who say the Father's presence is a extended force, known as the Holy Spirit...but I am puzzled why there are two named functions of GOD in the old Hebrew book of Job, which some pass off as a Hebrew parallel, saying the Almighty is a simile of the Father...
whereas I see they are like heavenly parents, a simile of two working together as a Family...
Such verses as these list and name several heavenly Beings, three in fact...

Job 40:1 ¶ Moreover the LORD YHWH answered Job, and said,
2 Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty SHADDAY instruct ? he that reproveth God ELOAH, let him answer it.

It is a pleasure to discuss our theories of faith, indeed we see God through a glass darkly...1Co 13:12
Shalom

 

[childeye]

Because we live in time and are fallible human beings. Because I fall someTIMEs doesn't mean I'm rejecting Christ and am following Satan. I choose Christ and do my best to totally trust in Him, but I fall short and someTIMEs choose self over God, due to my inborn sinful nature (concupiscence). I believe that the rule of law is a good thing and do my best to follow the rules of the road, but sometimes I speed because it benefits me, personally. Because I speed, on occasion (ahem...), doesn't mean I've become an Anarchist. It just means I'm CHOOSING to break the law for my own selfish benefit at a certain point in time. It's the same in the "moral purview", to use your language. I desire to totally serve Christ, but I fall short. As you said in the previous post, I am pulled by two conflicting desires, the desire to serve Christ and my own selfish desire. I must choose, all throughout the day (in time) which desire I will follow.

Dadof10, I like some of what you say here concerning weakness. I don't like when you say "my selfish desire". When you do this, you are identifying the term self as a desire in opposition to Christ, and I would not use self in describing any desire that does that. Why? Because Christ is the same Word at the center of myself and yourself from creation. John 1:3. Thinking that it's my self that desires to sin, does not separate me from my flesh and the devil who deceives me into thinking that my flesh is my self. Therefore I like weakness rather than free will, as per the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.

The other thing that I don't like, is you didn't even answer the question about non-committing. I asked "How is it then, that you can claim to not be equivocating, when you say we have freedom from two opposing powers at once?" You essentially answered, "by calling it choosing" . Changing what we call it is not what I meant, it's still equivocating. Equivocating means, non-committing in some degree relative to the cross of Christ. I think that the more we discover that Christ is at the center of our self, then the more we won't be able to not commit. 2 Corinthians 10:5.

No, it's really not, unless you try to make it so. We can define it and remove any ambiguity if you want to.

It's a relative term with degrees that are conceptualized only by what it is free from. Therefore when it is free from two opposing forces identified as life and death, there is no way there can be no ambiguity. That is what makes it ambiguous. You just assert freedom is there because we're somewhere in between. It's like trying to determine where the light ends and the darkness begins. You just assert freedom is there because we're somewhere in between. But we're not. The Light is at our core and it is the Word from creation and it is Christ.

I think this is where we are talking by each other. A person can't hold two contradictory positions at the same time, however he can say that he is a follower of Christ, but at times, he gets weak and falls into sin. This is far from ambiguous because the person is not totally rejecting Christ by his weakness anymore a disobedient child is totally rejecting his mother for another woman if he gets selfish.

True, saying we are weak in the flesh is not ambiguous, nor is it rejecting Christ since Christ himself even said that the flesh is weak but the spirit willing. Nor therefore is it the will that is desiring to be weak in the flesh. Just look at Peter denying Christ three times. But saying we are weak in the flesh and sometimes fall into sin is not the same ambiguous terminology as saying we freely choose.

Jesus also said: "Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us. For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ, will by no means lose his reward." (Mk. 9:39-41 RSV)
The verse you posted above says that we must make a choice for Jesus, the verse I posted says that as long as we don't reject Him outright, we will still be "for Him". Both verses assume a willful choice, because that is what true love is, a choice.

I don't see anywhere that this verse says as long as we don't reject Christ outright we are for Him. He simply says that he that is not against us is for us. Love is definitely not a choice. You either have Love, or you don't. You can't choose to have Love by free will since Love is God. 1 John 4:13. 13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

Really Childeye, this is a road we have already been down, the first day if I remember correctly. Your response was something like:

A person will only do what he desires, so if his image of God is proper, he will refrain from sin and only follow God because this is what he desires. It is not a free will choice, it is our singular desire that drives our actions. If we desire God, we will not sin, if we don't, we will.

Actually, I said a persons choices are determined by the desire. I then I said the desire is from the spiritual content and the spiritual content is determined by the image of god/God. I didn't say if we desire God, we will not sin. I said if we have Christ as our image of God, we sin less and less as we grow in faith and godliness.

You then said, rightly, that we have conflicting desires. Where we are now, is you have to explain who makes the decision which path to take when confronted with these desires, and how having a singular desire that drives a person's actions and "two conflicting desires" that must be chosen between before acting, is not an equivocation in itself.

I already told you, The Truth is stronger than the lies. Hence I choose accordingly. I have a singular desire that is my true self, as Christ is revealed in me, I choose according to that and so do you. 1 John 3:9. 2 Corinthians 10:5. Galatians 1:16.

The difference between us, is you sometimes identify your self with the desires of the flesh and sometimes the desires of Christ. Hence respectfully you equivocate in your own mind, but just call it choosing.

 

[dadof10]

It's not really any different, hence I understand your claim of it being equivocating. But when I said forced by circumstance alone, I meant it is inevitable and not voluntary. I was not meaning to imply that there are no other forces that compel or restrain a man's will as part of those circumstances. Dealing with the term free will outside of the moral purview becomes too complicated since there are not two powers that are competing. There can be many flavors of ice cream to choose from.

I understand you think that if a person has a proper "image of God" he will inevitably choose the right option in every situation. The problem is that this view doesn't hold up to real life scrutiny. When confronted with a "believer" who chooses against this "inevitability" and commits sin, your answer is "he's still growing in his faith", so that no matter the proof (i.e.when actual sin is committed by an actual Christian), it can be explained away. Now, you will say that my view is the same. The difference is that I agree, to a point, with your view. People who are "born-again" and are living their faith are less likely to sin. This view takes into consideration the numerous Biblical admonitions to refrain from sin. Your view doesn't. Why would Christians be admonished to refrain from sin if "circumstances alone" dictate actions (to sin or not)?

Scripture doesn't say he made a definitive choice. I think he was sad because he saw that he was not as rich as he thought. The riches which had made him happy were now a source of sorrow. I think he saw that he was farther from perfection than the poor were.

Empathy enables me to put myself in Paul's shoes. It's self evident to see that Paul/Saul thought he was doing the right thing when persecuting Christ.

These two interpretations speak volumes about how you approach Scripture. You have made up your mind a'priori about a doctrine and all Scripture must forced into this mold. The Rich Man felt sad and walked away from Christ!!! A person offered him the opportunity to "follow me", he walks away from this invitation and he didn't make a "definitive choice"??? Paul persecuted Christians and did it with zeal, that's a fact. But we can't look into his conscience and see if it was bothering him or not. He might have been bothered a little or a lot or not at all. All I'm saying is that no one knows but he and who he tells. There are numerous stories about people who do bad things with zeal, seeming to the outside world that they are perfectly happy. When they repent, however, they tell a different story. The many nurses who worked in abortion clinics, then repented, is just one example. They all tell similar stories that their consciences bothered them and they just pushed through, even becoming more devoted to the abortion movement to sooth their nagging consciences.

To say that because you are empathetic, so can know Paul's conscience is presumptuous. To say the Rich man didn't make a "definitive choice" is laughable.

It therefore follows that we also can do the wrong thing while thinking we are doing what is right according to our conscience. That means the conscience is not a source of Truth but rather works on what the mind perceives to be true.

Call "conscience" whatever you want to. You have said there are two conflicting desires and, according to your view, two conflicting "images of God/god". If you don't call the working of the Holy Spirit within the soul "conscience" what do you call it?

As for the rich man, he was perfectly happy being rich, which means he was fine in his conscience before Christ spoke,

Right, because there was no moral choice up to this point. There was only "riches are good". When confronted with the choice that to follow Christ meant poverty, he made a free will choice. We know this because he was saddened by his choice, which assumes free will. Again, if he only acted according to his "desires" and image of God, he wouldn't have been sad.

just as Saul/Paul was perfectly fine in his conscience persecuting Christ, until he found out that Christ is in himself.

You may feel comfortable assuming what was in Paul's conscience, but I don't .

It appears as a contradiction, but it is not. The problem is that when there are two opposing images of God/god, semantic confusion occurs since all terms reverse meaning. Hence when I said a person doesn't go against their desire I am referring to a single desire. But if there are two opposing images of God/god, then the person has two opposing desires. In which case they will not go against one desire, but will also go against the other.

Gobbledygook! which means "language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense.". First you say there is one desire that is formed by our "image of God/god" and it is "inevitable" that a person follows it. Then you say there are two conflicting desires and "images", not just one. When asked who chooses between them in a given situation, your answer is "they [the two opposing desires/images] will not go against one desire, but will also go against the other." I'm lost...

Because the Gospel is presenting a True image of God where a false god exists. 2 Corinthians 4:4. So when I preach the Gospel, I am preaching to people who are controlled by a false image of god, even though they think they have free wills and make their moral choices accordingly.

This doesn't answer the question posed:
"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"?

I believe that when Christ is revealed as that which is already at the core of our will from creation, then the desire to choose Christ in opposition to the flesh, is inevitable. Galatians 1:15-16.

And once this "inevitable" choice is made, there is never backsliding? Humm....History is rife with backsliders...

There is no equivocating back and forth in this single decision as you have described it. My contention with what you are describing is that you say "he made it freely". No consideration is given that blindness was removed, which enabled the person to see that he was deceived into serving powers against his own interests. The blindness was removed to see that what he thought was doing right was in reality doing wrong.

So if the "blindness [of the Rich man] was removed", why did he walk away? Wasn't "Christ revealed"? You just said "I believe that when Christ is revealed as that which is already at the core of our will from creation, then the desire to choose Christ in opposition to the flesh, is inevitable." Why didn't he "choose Christ"?

Through revelation of the Christ as per Galatians 1:15-16. It's not by flesh and blood.
Matthew 16:17.

The question was: "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?

So, the right choice is always made? There are two competing desires, here. Christ is one of them. To say that we choose either Christ or self (Satan) "through revelation of the Christ" is to say we either always choose Christ, or the "revelation of Christ" pushes us to choose Satan. More nonsense.

How can anyone choose against what they would choose? By being deceived.


But it is true. Saul would be violating his conscience if he didn't persecute Christ. But after being shown that Christ is in him, then his conscience was violated by persecuting Christ.

I didn't say grace, I said faith. I didn't mention fairness. Of course our freedom is dependent upon grace not free will.

Because, then men could say it was I that chose God, and not God who chose me. John 15:16.

These posts are getting a little long and to properly respond to the points here would take an entire post in itself. We seem to be rehashing the same points in each new post. I'll try in the future to only stick to the topic to keep them shorter.

 

[childeye]

I understand you think that if a person has a proper "image of God" he will inevitably choose the right option in every situation. The problem is that this view doesn't hold up to real life scrutiny. When confronted with a "believer" who chooses against this "inevitability" and commits sin, your answer is "he's still growing in his faith", so that no matter the proof (i.e.when actual sin is committed by an actual Christian), it can be explained away. Now, you will say that my view is the same. The difference is that I agree, to a point, with your view. People who are "born-again" and are living their faith are less likely to sin. This view takes into consideration the numerous Biblical admonitions to refrain from sin. Your view doesn't. Why would Christians be admonished to refrain from sin if "circumstances alone" dictate actions (to sin or not)?

I never said a person who believes in Christ will inevitably choose the right option in every situation. I said he eventually will stop sinning as he grows in faith. To me I that is not any different than saying that a believer in the babe stage is still carnal. That is no different than Paul saying, "ye are still carnal". 1 Corinthians 3:3. So yes, Paul "explains away" (your words) why they still sin, and it is because they are yet carnal, not because they have free wills and simply choose these actions freely. Moreover, refraining from sin is no different than walking in the Spirit. Galatians 5:16. However walking in the Spirit is not about choosing not to sin. It is about actions in servitude to others through Love.

These two interpretations speak volumes about how you approach Scripture. You have made up your mind a'priori about a doctrine and all Scripture must forced into this mold. The Rich Man felt sad and walked away from Christ!!! A person offered him the opportunity to "follow me", he walks away from this invitation and he didn't make a "definitive choice"???

When I said scripture doesn't say he made a definitive choice, I mean that it doesn't say definitively whether he ever sold his possessions or not, it just says that he walked away sad.

Paul persecuted Christians and did it with zeal, that's a fact. But we can't look into his conscience and see if it was bothering him or not. He might have been bothered a little or a lot or not at all. All I'm saying is that no one knows but he and who he tells. There are numerous stories about people who do bad things with zeal, seeming to the outside world that they are perfectly happy. When they repent, however, they tell a different story. The many nurses who worked in abortion clinics, then repented, is just one example. They all tell similar stories that their consciences bothered them and they just pushed through, even becoming more devoted to the abortion movement to sooth their nagging consciences.

But we do know that Paul thought he was doing the right thing out of ignorance and unbelief. It wasn't like he could simply choose to not be ignorant and believe. The point I am making about the conscience, is that the conscience works according to what we believe is true. Therefore I supplied the teaching about the eyes being able to see what is the Truth transcends the conscience.

Call "conscience" whatever you want to. You have said there are two conflicting desires and, according to your view, two conflicting "images of God/god". If you don't call the working of the Holy Spirit within the soul "conscience" what do you call it?

The Holy Spirit of Truth testifies of the Father and the son. The Holy Spirit therefore is not working in any conscience that would persecute the Christ. That is how I know Paul's conscience did not have the Truth and was compromised. I have already given you scripture that speaks of two conflicting images of God/god. 2 Corinthians 4:4.
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
According to this scripture, Saul/Paul was blinded in ignorance because of this god of the world.

Right, because there was no moral choice up to this point. There was only "riches are good". When confronted with the choice that to follow Christ meant poverty, he made a free will choice.

Scripture doesn't say what choice he made.

We know this because he was saddened by his choice, which assumes free will.

I don't think he was saddened by his choice. I think he was pondering the choice and was saddened because he errantly thought he would lose everything. Which I have already shown twice, that thinking he will lose everything is a lie. Hence he would be saddened because he is pondering a lie, just like Paul persecuted Christ with zeal because of a false belief. There is no free will here. The desires of the will are formed by what we believe to be true.

Again, if he only acted according to his "desires" and image of God, he wouldn't have been sad.

Again, he was deceived and hence he was sad. The sadness is a desire not chosen, but which comes because of his spiritual content, or what he believes to be true, which reveals his imagery of God. I also notice that this man could have just as easily concluded that he didn't need to be perfect and be content in his imperfect stature. Perhaps pride is seen here and his sadness is actually a dose of humility.

When a person's image of God is pure and holy, then God's Word is always a good thing, and nothing to ever be sad about doing. Is this statement true or not?

You may feel comfortable assuming what was in Paul's conscience, but I don't .

Do you know what a conscience is? It's a moral compass that determines right and wrong. God is the Light that defines the terms right and wrong. Consequently with a corrupt image of god in the mind, there is a corrupt conscience. Titus 1:15.

Gobbledygook! which means "language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense.". First you say there is one desire that is formed by our "image of God/god" and it is "inevitable" that a person follows it. Then you say there are two conflicting desires and "images", not just one. When asked who chooses between them in a given situation, your answer is "they [the two opposing desires/images] will not go against one desire, but will also go against the other." I'm lost...

I think it's simple. Good image of God makes for good choices. Bad image of god makes for bad choices. Ignorant minds make choices out of ignorance, and knowledgeable minds make choices out of knowledge.

This doesn't answer the question posed:
"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"?

No, my point is more that our desires are in conflict because there is a lie being confronted in our minds with the Truth of God. The carnal mind must experience a change in reasoning. What we first thought was success in our carnal reasoning must come to mean failure. That is why I said that all terms change direction.

And once this "inevitable" choice is made, there is never backsliding? Humm....History is rife with backsliders...

Well of course people can backslide, but it's still an issue of faith and what we're believing to be true.

So if the "blindness [of the Rich man] was removed", why did he walk away? Wasn't "Christ revealed"? You just said "I believe that when Christ is revealed as that which is already at the core of our will from creation, then the desire to choose Christ in opposition to the flesh, is inevitable." Why didn't he "choose Christ"?

But scripture doesn't say Christ was revealed in the rich man to the rich man.

The question was: "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?

There is no free will choice here. The conflict happens after one believes in Christ. The holy Spirit of Truth guides me. It's no different than a shepherd and his sheep.

So, the right choice is always made? There are two competing desires, here. Christ is one of them. To say that we choose either Christ or self (Satan) "through revelation of the Christ" is to say we either always choose Christ, or the "revelation of Christ" pushes us to choose Satan. More nonsense.

I agree this is nonsense. Glad I didn't say it. I never said self is Satan.

 

[childeye]

Most of us sit here, continuing to justify "those workers" where there is no justifications in sight for any of THEM.

Perhaps you could expound upon this thought with an example.

 

[smaller]

Perhaps you could expound upon this thought with an example.

From observations, the primary difficulty in ALL of theology is directing judgment in the intended directions.

For example:

Luke 8:30
And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.

In the above example, Jesus freed the man and condemned the devils. Two different actions laid upon what an ordinary person might see as only a crazy person. Would we condemn the man? No. Would we be right in directing judgment to Legion, yes. Two different judgments. One person. Two different entities.

Moving along, another example:

2 Corinthians 12:7
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

This is the SAME example as above, except Paul reigned OVER the messenger of Satan in his flesh. Do we condemn Paul? I would certainly hope not! Would we OR PAUL condemn the messenger of Satan in his flesh? Absolutely! Was the "entirety of Paul" when viewed in this example be justified? Uh, no. Never. This is "why" the flesh can never be justified. Not because of the flesh itself, but because of the factual lusts therein which are of the devil.

Romans 7:21
I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

Repeat the exercise. I could insert dozens of similar examples:

Matthew 16:23
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Luke 22:3
Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.

2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

There is however a very real personal problem that we ALL, down to the least of us, encounter when trying to see this matter. It has to be seen "personally" in order to hit home.

Otherwise the other party BLINDS the believer so they can not see it, and it is a very REAL blindness. If we wanted to understand WHY Paul saw only in part, the messenger of Satan and temptations in his own flesh were WHY. If we want to understand HOW Paul claimed himself the "chief of sinners" after salvation, 1 Tim. 1:15 ALL we have to do is observe his own struggles with temptations/lusts of the TEMPTER in his own flesh, the messenger of Satan in his own flesh.

Paul was personally TRUE to his own doctrines in this matter, and FAR from being trapped in hypocrisy, because of this brutal honesty. This is also WHY we are justified by faith alone through the Grace and Mercy of God in Christ. It can be no other way, honestly, when we see ourselves accurately, and WHY the flesh can never be justified no matter how rosy the "works."

 

[childeye]

From observations, the primary difficulty in ALL of theology is directing judgment in the intended directions.

For example:

Luke 8:30
And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.

In the above example, Jesus freed the man and condemned the devils. Two different actions laid upon what an ordinary person might see as only a crazy person. Would we condemn the man? No. Would we be right in directing judgment to Legion, yes. Two different judgments. One person. Two different entities.

Moving along, another example:

2 Corinthians 12:7
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

This is the SAME example as above, except Paul reigned OVER the messenger of Satan in his flesh. Do we condemn Paul? I would certainly hope not! Would we OR PAUL condemn the messenger of Satan in his flesh? Absolutely! Was the "entirety of Paul" when viewed in this example be justified? Uh, no. Never. This is "why" the flesh can never be justified. Not because of the flesh itself, but because of the factual lusts therein which are of the devil.

Romans 7:21
I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

Repeat the exercise. I could insert dozens of similar examples:

Matthew 16:23
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Luke 22:3
Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.

2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

There is however a very real personal problem that we ALL, down to the least of us, encounter when trying to see this matter. It has to be seen "personally" in order to hit home.

Otherwise the other party BLINDS the believer so they can not see it, and it is a very REAL blindness. If we wanted to understand WHY Paul saw only in part, the messenger of Satan and temptations in his own flesh were WHY. If we want to understand HOW Paul claimed himself the "chief of sinners" after salvation, 1 Tim. 1:15 ALL we have to do is observe his own struggles with temptations/lusts of the TEMPTER in his own flesh, the messenger of Satan in his own flesh.

Paul was personally TRUE to his own doctrines in this matter, and FAR from being trapped in hypocrisy, because of this brutal honesty. This is also WHY we are justified by faith alone through the Grace and Mercy of God in Christ. It can be no other way, honestly, when we see ourselves accurately, and WHY the flesh can never be justified no matter how rosy the "works."

So if I'm perceiving you correctly, you're saying that many people justify "those workers", through a blindness to their presence working in mankind?

The term 'justify' is my problem here. Take Paul and his messenger of Satan for example. The reason it was given to Paul was to keep him from becoming "exalted above measure". So that if you pardon the semantic change of connotation, this messenger of Satan serves a just purpose. It's like dark energy is a necessary component in creation for the revelation of what is the Light. If Paul is to be buffeted from becoming too proud by a messenger of Satan who himself is a spirit of pride, then it would appear that justification can only come from admitting that we are not good or evil of our own selves but by spiritual content. Hence God gathers through Mercy so that righteousness can only come by God's Grace.

So then, when I read that God is no respecter of persons , this is what I think it means.

 

[smaller]

So if I'm perceiving you correctly, you're saying that many people justify "those workers", through a blindness to their presence working in mankind?

The very basis of faith, justification and salvation is our weakness. When I say "them" never being able to be justified or in faith, I speak of the devil and his messengers. And gave many examples where ONE will be justified, and ONE not, which on the surface quotients, appear to be only ONE person, which they are not, in Gods Eyes.

There was man and legion.
There was Paul and the messenger of Satan in Paul's flesh.
There was Peter and Satan.
There was Judas and Satan.
There IS the god of this world and the minds that are blinded, the captives of him.

Need I go on with this simplicity? We should see HOW GOD SEES. Jesus denied this kind of measurement and sight:

John 8:15
Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

The term 'justify' is my problem here. Take Paul and his messenger of Satan for example. The reason it was given to Paul was to keep him from becoming "exalted above measure".

Let's again quick cut here. All have sin. Sin is of the devil. Yes, Paul had a particular messenger of Satan, purposefully put upon him, but all suffer this same problem with sin, being of the devil. There is no way to extract the messenger of Satan from any sin component, therefore ALL deal with the messenger of Satan, a devil or thee devil, in their flesh. 1 John 3:8. The instant any believer says they have, present tense, NO SIN, they are no longer IN TRUTH. 1 John 1:8.

So that if you pardon the semantic change of connotation, this messenger of Satan serves a just purpose.

Yes, this is exactly the source of ALL weakness in ALL flesh. From an entity that is not us, as believers, but of the TEMPTER.

It's like dark energy is a necessary component in creation for the revelation of what is the Light. If Paul is to be buffeted from becoming too proud by a messenger of Satan, then it would appear that justification can only come from admitting that we are not good or evil of our own selves.

Paul lays out this matter from many directions. Romans 9:18-24 is my personal favorite sight of this matter, as it really BEARS DOWN on all of us. And it is the same measure Paul laid upon his own flesh, his own LUMP of "me."

He is remarkably consistent in his delivery. And brutally brutally honest and self deprecating in the process. Paul's Ways are the Ways of the Gospel, to both measure ourselves, and to see who is HITTING THE MARKS of scripture and who is NOT and can not.

The first sign of the (blinded) and (temporarily) fallen, is hypocrisy. These are believers who can not look upon their own sin, and condemn it, as it is of the devil.

Isaiah 32:6
For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the Lord, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.

Isaiah is marked as a BELIEVER IN TRUTH, by this measure, because he HIT THE MARK OF TRUTH:

Isaiah 6:5
Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.

WOE IS ME, is the mandatory ground of entry to all IN TRUTH. There, only faith in Christ, stands.

 

[childeye]

The very basis of faith, justification and salvation is our weakness. When I say "them" never being able to be justified or in faith, I speak of the devil and his messengers. And gave many examples where ONE will be justified, and ONE not, which on the surface quotients, appear to be only ONE person, which they are not, in Gods Eyes.

There was man and legion.
There was Paul and the messenger of Satan in Paul's flesh.
There was Peter and Satan.
There was Judas and Satan.
There IS the god of this world and the minds that are blinded, the captives of him.

Need I go on with this simplicity? We should see HOW GOD SEES. Jesus denied this kind of measurement and sight:

John 8:15
Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.



Let's again quick cut here. All have sin. Sin is of the devil. Yes, Paul had a particular messenger of Satan, purposefully put upon him, but all suffer this same problem with sin, being of the devil. There is no way to extract the messenger of Satan from any sin component, therefore ALL deal with the messenger of Satan, a devil or thee devil, in their flesh. 1 John 3:8. The instant any believer says they have, present tense, NO SIN, they are no longer IN TRUTH. 1 John 1:8.



Yes, this is exactly the source of ALL weakness in ALL flesh. From an entity that is not us, as believers, but of the TEMPTER.



Paul lays out this matter from many directions. Romans 9:18-24 is my personal favorite sight of this matter, as it really BEARS DOWN on all of us. And it is the same measure Paul laid upon his own flesh, his own LUMP of "me."

He is remarkably consistent in his delivery. And brutally brutally honest and self deprecating in the process. Paul's Ways are the Ways of the Gospel, to both measure ourselves, and to see who is HITTING THE MARKS of scripture and who is NOT and can not.

The first sign of the (blinded) and (temporarily) fallen, is hypocrisy. These are believers who can not look upon their own sin, and condemn it, as it is of the devil.

Isaiah 32:6
For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the Lord, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.

Isaiah is marked as a BELIEVER IN TRUTH, by this measure, because he HIT THE MARK OF TRUTH:

Isaiah 6:5
Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.

WOE IS ME, is the mandatory ground of entry to all IN TRUTH. There, only faith in Christ, stands.

I appreciate your time in addressing my question. But to be clear, what you mean by saying that many here "justify those workers", is that they judge after the flesh, rather than judging the spirits working within? Or to rephrase, they judge according to outside appearances in blindness to what is vanity, or as Jesus said, they clean the outside of the cup? Matthew 23:25. All I'm saying is perhaps there is a way to rephrase the sentiment, since I think that sometimes what you say just goes in one ear and out the other, and deserves to be understood and contemplated.

 

[smaller]

I appreciate your time in addressing my question. But to be clear, what you mean by saying that many here "justify those workers", is that they judge after the flesh, rather than judging the spirits working within? Or to rephrase, they judge according to outside appearances in blindness to what is vanity, or as Jesus said, they clean the outside of the cup? Matthew 23:25. All I'm saying is perhaps there is a way to rephrase the sentiment since I think that sometimes what you say just goes in one ear and out the other and deserves to be understood.

There is NO CLEANING the outside of the CUP until the CHANGE of the VILE BODY arrives, ala 1 Cor. 15.

This then, this is the factual state of all of us, first and last positions being highlighted, colored and bolded for emphasis:

The Resurrection is planted, presently in these factual states:

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:


43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:


44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.


45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.


46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

IF any man or woman of FAITH wants to bellow in this present life about themselves, let them bellow the TRUTH of their present state before our Maker.

It is to these, that God will shed MORE LIGHT, because they are TRUTHFUL.

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

 

[childeye]

There is NO CLEANING the outside of the CUP until the CHANGE of the VILE BODY arrives, ala 1 Cor. 15.

True.

IF any man or woman of FAITH wants to bellow in this present life about themselves, let them bellow the TRUTH of their present state before our Maker.

It is to these, that God will shed MORE LIGHT, because they are TRUTHFUL.

True. The problem is sometimes this:
14 And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord God.
15 But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was.

 

[smaller]

True.
True. The problem is sometimes this:
14 And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord God.
15 But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was.

The faithful badge of "woe is me" is only delivered to the elect, that would those who are TRUTHFUL about themselves. No one else can put those Words into any person's mouth but Jesus. The Word of God tastes sweet in the mouth, but is bitter in the belly.

To every flesh man, they will SPIT out "those Words", and reject them, as the flesh is bound to do and perform, to vainly try to justify their own flesh, where there is only the ground of coming destruction. The Gospel is meant to offend the flesh, with the lusts therein. Corruption, dishonor, weakness have no place of honor before God in Christ. Yet we ALL bear these things in our flesh. And it upon these, in truth, in honesty, that Grace Abides.

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.

We all walk in this present contrariness. None of those red matters will be squeezing by any person's respective cross.

Any person trying to justify the entirety of themselves before God in Christ is wasting their time. Enter the factual ground of weakness, and LIVE.

God put ALL His daughters and sons in Babylon and in Egypt and yes, even in spiritual SODOM, to deliver them by His Sole Power to do so.

Jesus was, Himself, KILLED, here:

Revelation 11:8
And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

 

[childeye]

I know you do not see the Holy Spirit as a co-eternal Being, there are some with theories of faith who say the Father's presence is a extended force, known as the Holy Spirit...but I am puzzled why there are two named functions of GOD in the old Hebrew book of Job, which some pass off as a Hebrew parallel, saying the Almighty is a simile of the Father...
whereas I see they are like heavenly parents, a simile of two working together as a Family...
Such verses as these list and name several heavenly Beings, three in fact...

Actually I do see the Holy Spirit as a co-eternal Being. The problem is usually semantic confusion that arrives when trying to contemplate eternal things from a temporal point of view.

Your words tend to make me think that you are viewing the Son/Word as an expression of the Father/Creator, and that from these two appear a likeness in comparison to male and female, which in scripture the female comes from the male. These are two distinct perspectives of companionship in mankind, even because the male came first and understands being alone, while the woman was never alone but has always had the man. Hence when Adam saw Eve, he esteemed her as the highest thing above all that had been created. But Eve could not reciprocate likewise but was prone to take the man for granted.

This in my personal theology is what I call a no blame scenario, where there is a lopsided relationship but it is no one's fault. Therefore Satan would be a spirit causing division by working both ends against the middle in distrust and blame of one another. The same scenario could be applied to God and man, since man is made in the image of God. The Holy Spirit therefore would be that Spirit of Truth that works the ends toward the center in opposition to Satan, by testifying to both the Father and the Son in the form of the Christ, who is God made flesh and therefore has both perspectives. Wherefore he called himself, the son of man.

 

[childeye]

The faithful badge of "woe is me" is only delivered to the elect, that would those who are TRUTHFUL about themselves. No one else can put those Words into any person's mouth but Jesus. The Word of God tastes sweet in the mouth, but is bitter in the belly.

To every flesh man, they will SPIT out "those Words", and reject them, as the flesh is bound to do and perform, to vainly try to justify their own flesh, where there is only the ground of coming destruction. The Gospel is meant to offend the flesh, with the lusts therein. Corruption, dishonor, weakness have no place of honor before God in Christ. Yet we ALL bear these things in our flesh. And it upon these, in truth, in honesty, that Grace Abides.

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.

We all walk in this present contrariness. None of those red matters will be squeezing by any person's respective cross.

Any person trying to justify the entirety of themselves before God in Christ is wasting their time. Enter the factual ground of weakness, and LIVE.

God put ALL His daughters and sons in Babylon and in Egypt and yes, even in spiritual SODOM, to deliver them by His Sole Power to do so.

Jesus was, Himself, KILLED, here:

Revelation 11:8
And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

Okay, here's a harder question for you.
In regards to your use of red and blue, if I were to propose that from God's point of view, that all the words marked red would be blue and all the blue would be red, are we ever going to see any purple letters come out of your writings? Please don't take this question too seriously.

 

[smaller]

Okay, here's a harder question for you.
In regards to your use of red and blue, if I were to propose that from God's point of view, that all the words marked red would be blue and all the blue would be red, are we ever going to see any purple letters come out of your writings?

Where is your scriptural citing?!

1 Peter 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

I reason that every man or woman I witness to is planted in dishonor, weakness, corruption, and abides in the blindness of Satan's hold. I have HOPE for Permanent Change, which comes from the Love of God in Christ in unmerited Grace and faith in Christ alone.

Therein does everyone of us barter for the profit of our own coming Body, in Him.

I know not a single part will be left, unattended. Absorb. "Resistance is futile!" (opps, book of Borg citing)