FATE VS FREE WILL

[WIP]

I have a question. Are you saying that Adam and Eve knew right from wrong prior to the fall? Can that be since they didn't know good from evil until they ate of the forbidden fruit?

Genesis 3: NKJV
4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die.
5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.
7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.

 

[childeye]

I have a question. Are you saying that Adam and Eve knew right from wrong prior to the fall? Can that be since they didn't know good from evil until they ate of the forbidden fruit?

Genesis 3: NKJV
4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die.
5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.
7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.

If this post is directed at me WIP, no I am not saying that. I am saying they didn't even know what a lie is. But perhaps you can tell me why my posts seem to be so misunderstood? I thought it was very concise.

 

[WIP]

Sorry, I should have quoted. John Darling posted the following and I'm wondering if it is possible for Adam and Eve to have known what was right before the fall.

In the garden, Satan did not force them to sin. He reasoned with them, "surely you will not die" (Gen 3:4). Eve even repeated God's instructions back to Satan (Gen 3:3). She understood what she was doing, and Adam too. But in the end they chose to go against what they knew to be right.

 

[smaller]

Jesus showed us what happens where The Word is sown, and the Word was sown upon Adam and Eve.

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

If we apply the above fact to Adam and Eve, then we should no longer see just Adam and Eve, but the tempter within them as well. It was no longer then a question of just Adam and Eve, but of Adam, Eve, and the tempter that entered their hearts.

We can easily observe this to be a fact well before Eve was taken from within Adam. The first law, "do not eat" was delivered to Adam. We know from Paul that the "law" is for the lawless and for sinners. Therefore Adam was delivered the law, as a sinner before he ever sinned. And this, because of the showing of Jesus. It was not just a matter of Adam, but of the lawlessness one, the tempter who entered his own heart. Therefore came the LAW not to eat, and disobedience followed like night follows day. Predictable as the rain.

The evidence that the Law was mangled by the provocation of Satan is also evident. Eve could not even recount the law accurately, by adding to the law that they must not "touch" the tree. God didn't say that. Therefore she didn't know.

The fact that Eve was deceived is a "picture" that it was Adam's "inner man" Eve, who was deceived.

The lust of the flesh and the pride of life was also evident in the eyes of Eve prior to ingestion, again, pointing to the workings of the tempter "within" her. Adam, the flesh man, was not deceived. He was in fact utterly clueless, as the carnal man always is.

It is, to me, quite pointless to view either of them apart from the reality that Jesus revealed, that Satan entered their hearts, to deceive them. It was not some physical snake hanging around in the Garden, but a working that was put upon them, Satan, reacting in adversarial fashions to Gods Blessing from Day One of Adam, entering them, deceiving them, working "his adverse will" within them both.

Freewill? Unlikely. Divine Plan and Divine Will? Yes, beyond any doubt. We in the process have all received of this internal meal:

Psalm 74:14
Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.

Yes, the above is an allegory presenting internal temptations in connection with "leviathan." And we have all ingested this meal, this meat.

Hebrews 5:14
But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

 

[john darling]

Satan's devices work through subtlety, wherein it is not feasible to say Adam and Eve knew what they were doing regardless of their knowing what God said.

I think it's fine to say they didn't know what they were doing in the larger sense. They didn't understand how their actions would affect the rest of humanity. They didn't understand concepts like pride and rebellion. But they didn't need to understand those more complex issues.

When the Roman soldiers were crucifying an innocent man Jesus said, "forgive them for they know not what they do". However, they were Pilate's soldiers. They would have seen Pilate's efforts to free Jesus. They knew enough to mock him as a prophet and put a crown of thorns on his head (Matthew 27:28-31). They could only have known to do that if they witnessed the interaction at Jesus' trial.

Obviously, they had some idea of what they were doing but what Jesus could see is that they were still missing the bigger picture. Despite having seen the evidence that he was innocent, they refused to believe just how special he really was. They made a choice to break the law but they didn't recognize the larger spiritual consequences of their actions, just like Adam and Eve.

God may choose to have grace in situations where people are ignorant of the bigger picture but that grace does not negate the fact that, despite their ignorance of the bigger picture, people still choose their own decisions.

If God tells you to buy the yellow car from the used car lot and instead you come out having bought the green car, it will not matter to God that the salesman gave you a massive discount, or that the green car had less mileage or a more powerful engine, or confused you with statistics and percentages; you were told to buy the yellow car and you chose not to. To obey is better than sacrifice (I Samuel 15:22). Obedience becomes pointless without the freedom to disobey.

And it is convincing because it is suggestive against Adam and Eve's naiveté.

But they were not Naive. Eve understood the instruction; "don't do it". Eve went so far as to explain the instructions to Satan (Gen 3:2-3).

It was a single command. In all the garden and their own existence they had only one statute; do not eat fruit from this one tree.

It is a form of jealousy that is manifested out of imagining they are missing out on something, when in reality they aren't missing out on anything.

But they are missing out. They want something (even if what they want is petty or immature) and they are not getting it. But that is the point; God knows better than we do. If he tells us not to do something then we are required to obey. Satan told Adam and Eve they were missing out, and what he said was true. They lacked knowledge which they could get from the tree and when he explained this to them they had a desire for it. Whether the desire was appropriate or immature, or Satan's methods were super sly and convincing, the point is that God told them not to do it.

Hence they are impossible to please. From there I believe we can see some aspect of what is the good that was corrupted in mankind. It is kind of like Eve and her desire for something, that before Satan spoke, she had no desire for.

But Eve was not impossible to please. All she had to do was choose to disobey God and she got what she wanted. Whether she would have aquired the desire eventually of her own accord is beside the point of free will.

I am trying to establish first and foremost that Satan manipulated Eve so that I don't have to argue any points that Eve would have eaten it all by herself without Satan. Why is that important? So that we can discuss what Paul means by this, 2 Corinthians 11:3 . Yet you seem to be saying that Eve knew what was right, which is like saying Satan had no impact, which makes 2 Corinthians 11:3 pointless.

Manipulate, begiule, corrupt, influence, trick; whatever you want to call it. Eve knew that she was going against what God had told her. The fact that Satan gave her a reason, (i.e. a personal desire for what God said she should not do) does not negate the fact that it was still Eve's choice. She could have said, "no, God told me not to".

Paul makes the same case in the ref you provided. People will come along with fancy, spiritual sounding arguments but, like Eve, we should not be beguiled into forsaking God's expectations.

Is it wisdom to think Adam and Eve could have done what they knew was right, when we all have done the same thing?

First, I think it's intersting that you say here that Adam and Eve knew what was right. Earlier you made it sound like they were beguiled to the point that they could no longer tell what was right or wrong anymore and therefore had no free will in their decision to disobey God.

And second, yes it is wisdom. The standard is perfection (Matthew 5:48). Jesus was not giving us an impossible ethic. Although he knows how imperfect we are he is not willing to compromise on God's standard just to accommodate our imperfections. God expects us to be perfect, but grace is there because he knows we will not be perfect (at least not in this lifetime). He knows just how long and arduous the task of learning, change and improvement will be, so while the standard is high, he gives us opportunity for grace and mercy along the path to reaching that standard.

However, the expectation, along with the grace and mercy, is that we will recognize our faults, we will take responsibility for our behavior, and we will actively and consistently try to change as a result of that acceptance of blame. Otherwise, grace becomes pointless along with obedience.

I Know I didn't choose to be deceived, so I don't think anyone else does either.

It depends on the context, but certainly in the case of Eve, she chose to let Satan's deception get the better of her. She liked what he was saying and as a result she chose to disobey what she knew was right. There may be other situations where people do not clearly know what God's will is and in such circumstances they may do the wrong thing, but Jesus accounted for this, too (Luke 12:47-48).

Perhaps God has allowed us all to experience these same type of events so that we don't find reason to blame but to learn and find reason to forgive.

Blame is the reason to forgive. How can we forgive if there is no blame? Blame is also the basis for repentance. You can't repent if you have no blame to repent from. You mentioned this thing about blame earlier, but you likened it to "condemnation" as well, which I find to be quite a dangerous connection because they are two very different things. Condemnation offers no solution or hope, whereas accepting our blame does. By comparing the two you've made a case that accepting blame offers no real hope in which case repentence becomes obsolete along with obedience.

 

[john darling]

I have a question. Are you saying that Adam and Eve knew right from wrong prior to the fall? Can that be since they didn't know good from evil until they ate of the forbidden fruit?

A child doesn't need to undestand the philosophy behind the concept of "right vs wrong" when his parents tell him to brush his teeth. All he really needs to understand is that he was told to brush his teeth. For the purposes of this disucssion it does not matter if the child understands WHY it is wrong to disobey. The point is that the child has the freedom to disobey. Sure, there will be consequnces, just as God explained to Eve (Gen 2:17), but unless the parent physically forces the child to brush his teeth every morning and every evening, the child has the freedom to disobey.

 

[john darling]

Eve could not even recount the law accurately, by adding to the law that they must not "touch" the tree. God didn't say that. Therefore she didn't know.

I really do think this is swallowing camels and straning at gnats (Matthew 23:24). The concept is one of making a big deal over something insignificant while disregarding the significant.

Even if Eve had completely forgotton what God said, she'd still be responsible for her behavior simply because remembering what our creator tells us to do is part of our responsibility, too. Concerning free wil this is even more compelling evidence; we even have the freedom to forget what God tells us to do.

 

[childeye]

I think it's fine to say they didn't know what they were doing in the larger sense. They didn't understand how their actions would affect the rest of humanity. They didn't understand concepts like pride and rebellion. But they didn't need to understand those more complex issues.

When the Roman soldiers were crucifying an innocent man Jesus said, "forgive them for they know not what they do". However, they were Pilate's soldiers. They would have seen Pilate's efforts to free Jesus. They knew enough to mock him as a prophet and put a crown of thorns on his head (Matthew 27:28-31). They could only have known to do that if they witnessed the interaction at Jesus' trial.

Obviously, they had some idea of what they were doing but what Jesus could see is that they were still missing the bigger picture. Despite having seen the evidence that he was innocent, they refused to believe just how special he really was. They made a choice to break the law but they didn't recognize the larger spiritual consequences of their actions, just like Adam and Eve.

God may choose to have grace in situations where people are ignorant of the bigger picture but that grace does not negate the fact that, despite their ignorance of the bigger picture, people still choose their own decisions.

If God tells you to buy the yellow car from the used car lot and instead you come out having bought the green car, it will not matter to God that the salesman gave you a massive discount, or that the green car had less mileage or a more powerful engine, or confused you with statistics and percentages; you were told to buy the yellow car and you chose not to. To obey is better than sacrifice (I Samuel 15:22). Obedience becomes pointless without the freedom to disobey.



But they were not Naive. Eve understood the instruction; "don't do it". Eve went so far as to explain the instructions to Satan (Gen 3:2-3).

It was a single command. In all the garden and their own existence they had only one statute; do not eat fruit from this one tree.



But they are missing out. They want something (even if what they want is petty or immature) and they are not getting it. But that is the point; God knows better than we do. If he tells us not to do something then we are required to obey. Satan told Adam and Eve they were missing out, and what he said was true. They lacked knowledge which they could get from the tree and when he explained this to them they had a desire for it. Whether the desire was appropriate or immature, or Satan's methods were super sly and convincing, the point is that God told them not to do it.



But Eve was not impossible to please. All she had to do was choose to disobey God and she got what she wanted. Whether she would have aquired the desire eventually of her own accord is beside the point of free will.



Manipulate, begiule, corrupt, influence, trick; whatever you want to call it. Eve knew that she was going against what God had told her. The fact that Satan gave her a reason, (i.e. a personal desire for what God said she should not do) does not negate the fact that it was still Eve's choice. She could have said, "no, God told me not to".

Paul makes the same case in the ref you provided. People will come along with fancy, spiritual sounding arguments but, like Eve, we should not be beguiled into forsaking God's expectations.



First, I think it's intersting that you say here that Adam and Eve knew what was right. Earlier you made it sound like they were beguiled to the point that they could no longer tell what was right or wrong anymore and therefore had no free will in their decision to disobey God.

And second, yes it is wisdom. The standard is perfection (Matthew 5:48). Jesus was not giving us an impossible ethic. Although he knows how imperfect we are he is not willing to compromise on God's standard just to accommodate our imperfections. God expects us to be perfect, but grace is there because he knows we will not be perfect (at least not in this lifetime). He knows just how long and arduous the task of learning, change and improvement will be, so while the standard is high, he gives us opportunity for grace and mercy along the path to reaching that standard.

However, the expectation, along with the grace and mercy, is that we will recognize our faults, we will take responsibility for our behavior, and we will actively and consistently try to change as a result of that acceptance of blame. Otherwise, grace becomes pointless along with obedience.



It depends on the context, but certainly in the case of Eve, she chose to let Satan's deception get the better of her. She liked what he was saying and as a result she chose to disobey what she knew was right. There may be other situations where people do not clearly know what God's will is and in such circumstances they may do the wrong thing, but Jesus accounted for this, too (Luke 12:47-48).



Blame is the reason to forgive. How can we forgive if there is no blame? Blame is also the basis for repentance. You can't repent if you have no blame to repent from. You mentioned this thing about blame earlier, but you likened it to "condemnation" as well, which I find to be quite a dangerous connection because they are two very different things. Condemnation offers no solution or hope, whereas accepting our blame does. By comparing the two you've made a case that accepting blame offers no real hope in which case repentence becomes obsolete along with obedience.

Mr. Darling, you have written one massive post. With no disrespect intended, I'm afraid, some of what you said are responses to claims I never made. I would blame that on semantic confusion. Other places are simply dismissing my points and moving on. But let's put that behind us rather than going through the trouble of explaining every nuance of every word said and how it was interpreted and so forth.

If I may cut to the chase, you have one basic principle being presented on behalf of what you mean by "freewill", that you have used to repel all of my points. That is, in regards to Adam and Eve, that if a person is given a command, they have the ability to keep it, regardless of not knowing about deception, pride, trust, rebellion, flesh, spirit, good, evil, Love, Darkness, ignorance, lust, etc...etc.. But in regards to disobedience, then you say, that we need to be able to disobey, so we can learn why to obey and be sorry we disobeyed. I understand that.

Unfortunately, this does not actually address the issue in all of this. The issues are this, do we have a moral freewill? As in unrestrained by fate or divine force. That is, can mankind be good apart from God? What is corruption? As in where do vile passions proceed from? Are we autonomous and self governing in the moral sense apart from His Spirit? What does a false image of god do to a person's reasoning? What is a false image of god? Did Satan plant a false image of god in Eve?

Answer these and then we can move on to what moral responsibility means.

 

[john darling]

Mr. Darling,

Hi CE. I realize this may sound like a strange request, but I'd prefer if you not called me Mr. as per Matthew 23:7-12. Just call me by my name.

I would blame that on semantic confusion. Other places are simply dismissing my points and moving on. But let's put that behind us

If you feel like putting my rebuttals to your arguments behind you that's fine, though I don't see how you can rationally do that without forcing a situtation where are are "talking past one another".

That is, in regards to Adam and Eve, that if a person is given a command, they have the ability to keep it,

Not only the ability, but the responsibility to keep it. Otherwise, there could be no expectation. Without free will there can be no command, no obedience, no repentance and no forgiveness, for there would be nothing to obey nor anything to repent from. If we have no choice in following God then we have no free will.

regardless of not knowing about deception, pride, trust, rebellion, flesh, spirit, good, evil, Love, Darkness, ignorance, lust, etc...etc..

Yes, exactly. If a child is told not to turn on the tv, the child does not need to know all the specifics of the violence and sex they will find while watching Tv. In the context of free will, all they need to know is that they were told not to turn on the TV. They may choose to obey the command or not regardless of their understanding of the "why" behind the command. Otherwise, we must assume that we know better than God and that our reasons for disobeying his commands rests on our ability to disern what is best for ourselves.

Perhaps we have become spoiled with talk of love, grace, mercy and forgiveness. We no longer feel any need to obey simply because the creator of the universe commands it. We should not only have the freedom to disobey, but also to claim that we are not responsible for our disobedience. Truely, the heart is deceitful above all things.

Unfortunately, this does not actually address the issue in all of this.

The issue is "free will". You do not explain why my arguments do not address free will ( you plainly say you will put my reasoning "behind you"), even though I've given several examples where people understand that they are not to do something, and yet, through their own desire choose to do what they know they should not do. How is this not free will? God clearly gives us not only the ability to disregard his commands, but the ability to "forget" his commands or even curse his name if we so choose (Job 2:9-10).

That is, can mankind be good apart from God?

No, we cannot be good apart from God. He is the source of all goodness. Any goodness done by any person in the entire world in the history of man comes from God's spirit working in that person, even if only in part (1 john 4:7). But, man certainly can be bad apart from God. That is the very nature of free will. We have the freedom to behave badly. If personal choice was not invovled, then man would be blameless (John 9:41).

Did Satan plant a false image of god in Eve?

I've already typed out an answer to all your questions, which I'm quite ready to post for you. However, I've faced a situation like this before, where I'm inundated with a list of questions which all seem to be geared toward dismissing what I've already said on the subject (e.g. your previous statement that you want to "put behind you" all that I've already said). I'm not accusing you of doing this (even though you yourself said it's what you are doing), but only that it fits a pattern which I've experienced before. Anyway, I'm fine to post my reply to your other questions if you'll first answer a question from me; in the end, did Adam and Eve both act contrary to what God told them not to do?

I look forward to your response.

 

[smaller]

Even if Eve had completely forgotton what God said, she'd still be responsible for her behavior simply because remembering what our creator tells us to do is part of our responsibility, too.

Hard to "keep" a command that she never received other than second hand. The command was to Adam, sooo, either Adam mangled it or Even "enhanced" it beyond what was actually said.

And in any case of sight there is zero reason to discount Jesus' Statement of Fact about "what happens" where the Word is sown, which also explains "not hearing" the Word of God, as noted prior.

Concerning free wil this is even more compelling evidence; we even have the freedom to forget what God tells us to do.

Adam was Gods son. It will remain rather pointless to slur either Adam or Eve, in the light of that fact and the fact noted above.

So, evidence? No. If anything Mark 4:15 shows open evidence of "another will" that is not the person, operating within them. Freewill also requires us to discount Gods Will in the events as well. We might also keep in mind that within both Adam and Eve was the coming body of Jesus as well.

 

[childeye]

If you feel like putting my rebuttals to your arguments behind you that's fine, though I don't see how you can rationally do that without forcing a situtation where are are "talking past one another".

Sorry John, but your rebuttals were addressing inferences from words I had used, that had changed in connotation so that you weren't actually rebutting the intent of my thought. Therefore to respond to them was rather pointless except to say what I've just said.

Not only the ability, but the responsibility to keep it. Otherwise, there could be no expectation.

See these statements. It seems you are asserting that one must be capable of disobeying God, otherwise there could be no expectation to keep a commandment.

I already addressed this in my first post to you by showing that Truth doesn't need lies to exist, while lies do need the Truth to exist. Respectfully, do you see this and understand it? Light and dark are not equal powers in any sense. For the power behind disobedience,(the lie) is a temporal power that usurps from the power behind obedience, (the Truth) the Eternal power. Hence obedience to God does not require disobedience to exist. This is why I said we're actually discussing faith or trust which without trust, there cannot even be obedience.

Without free will there can be no command, no obedience, no repentance and no forgiveness, for there would be nothing to obey nor anything to repent from. If we have no choice in following God then we have no free will.

Same with this.

Yes, exactly. If a child is told not to turn on the tv, the child does not need to know all the specifics of the violence and sex they will find while watching Tv. In the context of free will, all they need to know is that they were told not to turn on the TV. They may choose to obey the command or not regardless of their understanding of the "why" behind the command. Otherwise, we must assume that we know better than God and that our reasons for disobeying his commands rests on our ability to disern what is best for ourselves.

This is well said. I would add that trust is the issue.

Perhaps we have become spoiled with talk of love, grace, mercy and forgiveness. We no longer feel any need to obey simply because the creator of the universe commands it. We should not only have the freedom to disobey, but also to claim that we are not responsible for our disobedience. Truely, the heart is deceitful above all things.

Love, grace and mercy are terms that change in connotation according to one's theology. I understand your inferences only because I understand freewill theology. But I am not an advocate for freewill therefore I would not think this. Instead I would think that disobedience is not an act of freewill, it is an act of distrust much like you described above where you said, Otherwise, we must assume that we know better than God and that our reasons for disobeying his commands rests on our ability to disern what is best for ourselves.

The issue is "free will". You do not explain why my arguments do not address free will ( you plainly say you will put my reasoning "behind you"), even though I've given several examples where people understand that they are not to do something, and yet, through their own desire choose to do what they know they should not do. How is this not free will?

First off I would, point out that I never said I would put your reasoning behind me. I said this, "But let's put that behind us". And I wasn't referring to your reasoning, I was referring to semantic confusion. It wasn't meant to be taken personally.

Your arguments don't address freewill, because freewill is not about keeping and not keeping commandments. Freewill is about autonomy without restraint from Fate or divine force. Note that you say this: even though I've given several examples where people understand that they are not to do something, and yet, through their own desire choose to do what they know they should not do.
This "desire" to do something apart from God's command is the issue. I don't believe this desire is voluntary, but is the product of temptation that comes through the enticing of the flesh by spiritual powers of darkness. Therefore Jesus would say, John 8:44 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do." These desires that are contrary to God, they are the same desires from where proceed disobedience. I believe that since men believe they have a freewill, they are blind to these powers working in them. Ephesians 2:2, Ephesians 6:12 , 2 Corinthians 4:4, Ephesians 4:18.

God clearly gives us not only the ability to disregard his commands, but the ability to "forget" his commands or even curse his name if we so choose (Job 2:9-10).

I don't see it that way. I think job is a lesson in perseverance of integrity. In freewill theology any and every opportunity to sin or obey in scripture could be construed as proof of freewill. But it doesn't prove that there aren't higher powers that provoke disobedience in mankind. I mean Job didn't exactly volunteer for any of this.

No, we cannot be good apart from God. He is the source of all goodness. Any goodness done by any person in the entire world in the history of man comes from God's spirit working in that person, even if only in part (1 john 4:7). But, man certainly can be bad apart from God. That is the very nature of free will. We have the freedom to behave badly. If personal choice was not invovled, then man would be blameless (John 9:41).

Okay, That's precisely why I don't believe in freewill. Men would not be blameless. So here are Jesus' words. Please note that I believe that men who sin are blind to what they are doing. 41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. Who are the freewill believers in this sentence? Who are the one's that blame and hold men accountable for their sins? Is it not the Pharisees? It's their sin that remains. If we hold others accountable for their sins, then we must hold ourselves accountable also. But since sin happens through a blindness or ignorance of Truth, it is not voluntary, since it can't be helped.
Matthew 7King James Version (KJV)
7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Anyway, I'm fine to post my reply to your other questions if you'll first answer a question from me; in the end, did Adam and Eve both act contrary to what God told them not to do?

Yes.

 

[john darling]

Hard to "keep" a command that she never received other than second hand. The command was to Adam, sooo, either Adam mangled it or Even "enhanced" it beyond what was actually said.

I think this is the straining at gnats thing, again. We don't know how Eve found out about the command to not eat from the tree. Likely it was Adam who passed it on to her, or perhaps it was God and that bit just wasn't recorded because the author felt any sincere reader would assume it from the context. But either way, it really doesn't matter who told her; the point is she herself repeated the instructions showing that she did know what she was not to do. She not only understood the command "do not eat" but she recognized that it was from God and that there would be a consequence for disobeying. The fact that she includes "do not touch" in her explanation matters little, because it wasn't just "touching" that she did. She ate the fruit.

As Childeye suggested earlier, Satan introduced to her the concept of desiring what she cannot have and lied to her about the consequences when she objected. She chose to trust the snake over God. Whether we call it manipulation, trickery, or influence, makes no difference; the choice was still there in Eve's will. She could have said "no" even after Satan's lie.

Adam was Gods son. It will remain rather pointless to slur either Adam or Eve, in the light of that fact and the fact noted above.

You and Childeye seem to be in agreement on this particular point of blame and "slurring", as though it is wrong to recognize blame or it is a "slur" to recognize the truth about our sinfulness. "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God". Is that a slur on all humanity, or is it just recognizing the cold, hard truth about ourselves?

Adam and Eve did the wrong thing. They chose to put their personal desire for the fruit above what God wanted. That doesn't make me better than them and I'm not condemning them. I'm just recognizing it was a sin for them to behave the way they did. In fact it is a command that we learn to recognize sin not only in ourselves but in others, not to put them down or to feel as though we are better than them, but becasue correction and acceptance of our faults is a vital part of repentence, learning and growing (Luke 17:3 and Matthew 18:15-17).

From what I've seen, the point of this "no free will" doctrine is to remove responsibility for sin by saying something like, "the devil made me do it".

So, evidence? No. If anything Mark 4:15 shows open evidence of "another will" that is not the person, operating within them.

Here is a reference to the "devil made me do it" doctrine I just mentioned. You reference a parable from Jesus where he talks about how Satan comes to interfere with a person who hears the truth. Your conclusion is that there is "another will" here, not only influencing the person, but initiating their behavior for them, thus (so you seem to think) proving that the person is not acting on their own free will, but the will of satan "operating within them". No accountability or personal responsibility for their actions is necessary because, "the devil made me do it".

Freewill also requires us to discount Gods Will in the events as well.

No, freewill does not require us to discount God's will. It gives us the freedom to discount his will if that is what we choose to do. God influences us. He gives commands and dictates consequences. He persuades. He reasons. He comforts and he forgives. But he does not force. In the end, no matter what happens, we still have the freedom to reject him no matter how much influence he exerts in our lives.

In the same way, Satan also reasons, persuades, manipulates and comforts (2 Cor 11:14) but he cannot force us (James 4:7). In the end we still have the freedom to choose God's will no matter how much influence Satan exerts. I referenced Job in this context. He went through all that suffering but resolutely chose not to curse God. He made a choice that no matter how much pressure was put on him, he would not bow to that pressure. To say that he had no freedom of will in that matter is a massive insult not only to him but to all saints throughout history who have ever persevered and stayed faithful to God through their various trials as a result of their personal convictions to do so.

 

[john darling]

Sorry John, but your rebuttals were addressing inferences from words I had used, that had changed in connotation so that you weren't actually rebutting the intent of my thought. Therefore to respond to them was rather pointless except to say what I've just said.

Hi CE. Okay thanks for the explanation. However, since I cannot read your mind I cannot possibly respond to the "intent of your thought". I can only respond to the words you post on the screen, which I personally feel I have done. Anyway I do feel these "changing connotations" of yours make it far too difficult for me to keep up with the way you reason your position. I think I'd feel better about debating an issue where the positions are clear and consistent; otherwise I'll probably find myself running around in circles. Maybe we'll find more agreement next time.

 

[smaller]

I think this is the straining at gnats thing, again. We don't know how Eve found out about the command to not eat from the tree. Likely it was Adam who passed it on to her, or perhaps it was God and that bit just wasn't recorded because the author felt any sincere reader would assume it from the context. But either way, it really doesn't matter who told her; the point is she herself repeated the instructions showing that she did know what she was not to do. She not only understood the command "do not eat" but she recognized that it was from God and that there would be a consequence for disobeying. The fact that she includes "do not touch" in her explanation matters little, because it wasn't just "touching" that she did. She ate the fruit.

The initial observation remains. Jesus told us what happens where The Word is sown in Mark 4:15. I believe what Jesus reveals in this matter was true for Adam/Eve and remains true to this moment.

Therefore there is more to see than just Adam/Eve and their sole wills. I understand that this sight of Jesus is NOT friendly to freewill advocates, and expect Jesus' Words in this matter to be diminished to gnathood status by such advocates.

As Childeye suggested earlier, Satan introduced to her the concept of desiring what she cannot have and lied to her about the consequences when she objected. She chose to trust the snake over God. Whether we call it manipulation, trickery, or influence, makes no difference; the choice was still there in Eve's will. She could have said "no" even after Satan's lie.

Paul saw no different than what Jesus revealed to be true in matters of disobedience, i.e. that there is the "will of disobedience," the will of the tempter also involved within the person.

Here Paul shows this to be the "universal condition" of mankind. A condition placed upon mankind quite apart from our supposed 'freestanding' will:

Romans 11:
32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

There is no reason to believe Adam/Eve were any different in this respect.

Here Paul shows us again, the identical matter for us, prior to being "born again:"

Ephesians 2:
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

The "prince of the power of the air" is the tempter who tempts internally, working his will, quite unannounced to the parties involved. No unbeliever knows that they are blinded by the god of this world in their minds:

2 Corinthians 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.

Even when we see, we are placed "over" that working, but we are not eliminated or isolated from it.

All of these matters are identical. This world was made intentionally wicked, and that, by God Himself. It can very well be that all the exercises of this world are meant to "judge and condemn" the devil and his messengers. And Gods children are placed within this exercise.

You and Childeye seem to be in agreement on this particular point of blame and "slurring", as though it is wrong to recognize blame or it is a "slur" to recognize the truth about our sinfulness. "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God". Is that a slur on all humanity, or is it just recognizing the cold, hard truth about ourselves?

Where there is a fulcrum of judgment other than the person, which scripture proposes, then it is to that direction we should look. The difficulties are that the agents involved are unseen, except by The Revealing Light of Gods Words AND these are "overlapped" within the flesh of humanity, just as the 'tempter' entered Adam and Eve, to work his disobedient will.

I doubt very much that in any form of obedience, that the spirit of disobedience is made obedient. The "adverse will" of the tempter will always work adversely to the Ways of God regardless of the person doing or exercising any particular thoughts, choices or actions.

Adam and Eve did the wrong thing. They chose to put their personal desire for the fruit above what God wanted. That doesn't make me better than them and I'm not condemning them. I'm just recognizing it was a sin for them to behave the way they did. In fact it is a command that we learn to recognize sin not only in ourselves but in others, not to put them down or to feel as though we are better than them, but becasue correction and acceptance of our faults is a vital part of repentence, learning and growing (Luke 17:3 and Matthew 18:15-17).

And you seem to miss the point again, that it was not just Adam and Eve involved with this matter. There were Gods Words and Will. There was the adverse will of the tempter, also working in these matters. So in this stew of wills, rather than seeing just the individual will, we should realistically see 3 wills working. Gods Will, the will of the person and the will of the tempter, all within the individual.

From what I've seen, the point of this "no free will" doctrine is to remove responsibility for sin by saying something like, "the devil made me do it".

The devil doesn't make anyone do anything. The devil does what the devil does. When Satan spoke through Peter for example, it was Satan speaking, not Peter. Satan didn't make Peter do anything because Satan did it. So the Flip Wilson thing has no applicability. The spirit of disobedience does what IT does regardless of the person in which that adverse will operates.

Here is a reference to the "devil made me do it" doctrine I just mentioned. You reference a parable from Jesus where he talks about how Satan comes to interfere with a person who hears the truth. Your conclusion is that there is "another will" here, not only influencing the person, but initiating their behavior for them, thus (so you seem to think) proving that the person is not acting on their own free will, but the will of satan "operating within them". No accountability or personal responsibility for their actions is necessary because, "the devil made me do it".

It is precisely on this ground of separation that "sins are not counted to mankind" and CAN AND WILL be counted against the devil and his messengers. Both of these presentations are simultaneously true, and are applicable to any person.

For example, even in our repentance, that does not put the power and workings of Satan "off the hook." Satan never turned or repented in that process. And the activity of the resistor can and does become focused even moreso against believers than the unbelievers, as Satan desires to "have his hold" on the flesh, his habitation. We should not expect him to give up any house.

Here, a man is deemed by Jesus to be the "house" of the evil spirit(s):

Matthew 12:
43 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.
44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.

We can also directly connect every sin to the devil, here, from John the Apostle:

1 John 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

No, freewill does not require us to discount God's will. It gives us the freedom to discount his will if that is what we choose to do. God influences us. He gives commands and dictates consequences. He persuades. He reasons. He comforts and he forgives. But he does not force. In the end, no matter what happens, we still have the freedom to reject him no matter how much influence he exerts in our lives.

No man's freewill has chosen themselves into being sinless. The very existence of sin is because of the adverse will of Satan is intimately involved in the process and no persons free will is the will of Satan in any cases of sights.

In the same way, Satan also reasons, persuades, manipulates and comforts (2 Cor 11:14) but he cannot force us (James 4:7).

In every way christians are to "contain" the thoughts of the adversary, and not let them wrestle us into worse (read, EXTERNAL) forms of sin. As we can see with Adam and Eve sin is a progression from thoughts to words to deeds. And they marked out this trail every step of the way, as the ways of sin. But that does not mean that all of us do not have to deal internally with adverse temptation thoughts, which are of the tempter, within, just as it was with Adam/Eve.

In the end we still have the freedom to choose God's will no matter how much influence Satan exerts .

No matter what "choice" one may perceive they made, they made no choices for the tempter, who continues to do what he does.

 

[john darling]

The spirit of disobedience does what IT does regardless of the person in which that adverse will operates.

In other words, we have no personal responsibility for our behavior. You say the devil doesn't make anyone do anything, because it is the devil himself performing the actions, except through a human body. In this case the human is nothing more than a robot. I don't see anything like that in scripture, anywhere, but I do understand how incredibly conveneint would be to take this position. Instead of "the devil made me do it" you suggest, "It's not me, but the devil acting through me" as though there is a significant different, but there isn't. It's a distinction without a difference; straining at gnats. Some would see it as soothing a guilty conscience while others would see it as searing a convicted conscience (1 Tim 4:2).

 

[childeye]

Hi CE. Okay thanks for the explanation. However, since I cannot read your mind I cannot possibly respond to the "intent of your thought". I can only respond to the words you post on the screen, which I personally feel I have done. Anyway I do feel these "changing connotations" of yours make it far too difficult for me to keep up with the way you reason your position. I think I'd feel better about debating an issue where the positions are clear and consistent; otherwise I'll probably find myself running around in circles. Maybe we'll find more agreement next time.

John, I truly like your posts. When you speak about finding it difficult to keep up with my "changing connotations", I can empathize with your frustration. It's exactly the reason why I didn't respond to all of your initial rebuttals. I offer again my sincere apology. I now regret not answering that post, regardless of the amount of time and explaining it would have consumed.

But please don't leave the conversation on that account. Help me explore the sources of these changing connotations. Since I am sure you value Truth, and desire the knowledge of God, you owe it to yourself to come to understand.

I believe that accuse and excuse are pointing to the two cherubim that sit atop the ark of the covenant and also guard the way to the tree of life. I believe Satan plays the ends against the middle, while Christ brings both ends to the center. Our two opposing perspectives are pointing to the center of the mercy seat and discerning what spirits abide there through these changing connotations. Don't you at least find that worth exploring?

It means every term in scripture changes meaning according to which way you look at it. It opens up a deeper insight into every thing written therein. In fact I believe it reveals two opposing images of god/God dwelling in the subconscious that determine the countenance of the person. I believe it is the means to discern Truth and lies, and put Satan under our feet through Christ.

 

[smaller]

In other words, we have no personal responsibility for our behavior. You say the devil doesn't make anyone do anything, because it is the devil himself performing the actions, except through a human body.

The observation made in this matter is this. That no matter what any person does, the tempter also does what the tempter does. No amount of "personal responsibility applied" will change what the tempter does. If we observe that Paul himself, after salvation, observed that he was the "chief of sinners" it would seem that would be the end goal that Paul directs us to observe. The larger question is why? And I believe Paul addresses the "why's" quite clearly.

Yes, I do certainly believe and adhere to the moral dictates, but that does not sway the fact that evil is present within every moral adherent regardless, so we should not kid ourselves about ourselves, as that is the ground of dishonesty and in that lie, thinking that only by the external measures, we are personally vindicated, the lie leads directly to hypocrisy and we are bound up with a very particular dilemma. This particular dilemma resides in every church currently. We all like to think we're entirely good and entirely justified, etc etc. when that case really isn't the case of scripture. It's a dead end. And this dead end is exemplified in the dramatic separations that all the churches currently have.

We have a basic honesty problem on our collective hands.

In this case the human is nothing more than a robot.

Look, I spent the first believing years of my life in the freewill camp, so there are few angles to this subject matter I haven't examined, and lived in. Eventually I had to discard the position because it's just not true or personally truthful. The paths that took me there were chastisement and tribulations, which are promised to transpire with believers. And this caused me to examine my own will. I did not find it empty. I did find that Gods Will Is Perfectly Superior, above all things and all other wills inclusive of my own.

I don't see anything like that in scripture, anywhere, but I do understand how incredibly conveneint would be to take this position. Instead of "the devil made me do it" you suggest, "It's not me, but the devil acting through me" as though there is a significant different, but there isn't. It's a distinction without a difference; straining at gnats. Some would see it as soothing a guilty conscience while others would see it as searing a convicted conscience (1 Tim 4:2).

I've already dispelled your notion of my observations. I've presented no such things as the devil made you or I do anything. The devil does what the devil does and we shouldn't expect it to be otherwise. I also know that I have an overcoming path laid out, which is to love regardless of the adversary. I "need" Grace and Mercy, daily, for reasons beyond "just me" and my fallacious "freewill." I would submit that our personal binding internally to both good and evil demand the Divine Extensions of Grace and Mercy.

If I thought my own religious dog and pony show were enough to slip me by the Gates of Heaven, I wouldn't need either, but could thump my chest like a typical modern day pharisee. I'm just so not interested in being one.

 

[john darling]

Hi CE. Okay let's try again.

This "desire" to do something apart from God's command is the issue.

I don't think desire to do something apart from God's commands is the issue at all. The issue is free will and not, "do we feel desire". Do we have the freedom to choose something other than what God wants and do we have the freedom to choose something other than our own personal desires. To me, that is free will. It does not matter that our choices are not infinite, or that we are influenced either by good or bad. Those are superfluous to the core question, "do we have a will which is free when it comes to the choices we make in life".

 

[john darling]

That no matter what any person does, the tempter also does what the tempter does.

"What the tempter does" is not the issue. Our freedom to resist or go along with the tempter is the issue (James 4:7).

No amount of "personal responsibility applied" will change what the tempter does.

Freewill does not depend on us changing the temptor. Regardless of how he tempts, we have the freedom to resist.

Yes, I do certainly believe and adhere to the moral dictates, but that does not sway the fact that evil is present within every moral adherent regardless

The existance of evil isn't the issue, either. I don't think anyone has argued that evil does not exist. The question is why does evil exist and the answer is that it exists so we have something not to choose. Satan put intense pressure on Job and yet Job resisted, not because he was kidding himself or because God coerced him to resist, but because he, Job himself, had a personal conviction that he would never curse the Lord no matter how horrible the circumstances.

that is the ground of dishonesty and in that lie, thinking that only by the external measures, we are personally vindicated, the lie leads directly to hypocrisy and we are bound up with a very particular dilemma.

I don't know what you mean by "only external messures" but I'm guessing you are referencing my comments on obedience to the commands of Jesus, since you talk about "moral dictates". Grace is there for the times when we sin, but by it's very nature grace can only be there for people who need it. If we are not responsibile for our own choices then how could we need grace or forgiveness?

God can exert a powerful influence in our lives. He listens to us. He communicates with us. He acts on our behalf and patiently guides us, but those things never override our personal will. We always have the choice to say no to God. That's what "searing the concience" means. It is this choice which makes us so precious and valuable to God; creatures who follow him because they choose to and not simply because he's programmed them to.

We all like to think we're entirely good and entirely justified, etc etc. when that case really isn't the case of scripture. It's a dead end. And this dead end is exemplified in the dramatic separations that all the churches currently have.

I don't entirely disagree with what you've shared here, but it really has no bearing on the issue of free will. Free will is not about justifying one's self or pretending that we are better than we really are. Free will is about acknowledging that we have the freedom to choose who we will serve, who we want to be and what kind of character we want to have. Integrity, honesty, courage, compassion, humility...these things can only come as a result of the choices we make in life.

What we choose to do with our freedom is a completely different topic. This topic, as I understand it now, is the question of whether or not the freedom to choose exists in the first place.

And this caused me to examine my own will. I did not find it empty. I did find that Gods Will Is Perfectly Superior, above all things and all other wills inclusive of my own.

Again, I think you are confusing the issues. Of course God's will is superior to our own. I can't see that anyone argued otherwise. The question was never about who's will was superior. The question was about our own, personal, god-given will, which you've mentioned above. You examined your will and found God's will to be superior.

The fact that God's will is superior to yours should tell you that your will is not in perfect harmony with God's will, though ultimately that is what God wants, but because we choose it and not because he forces it through his own will. It is the understanding and wisdom which comes through the exercising of our free will which teaches our imperfect will to become more perfectly in tune with God's will (Hebrews 5:14).

I also know that I have an overcoming path laid out, which is to love regardless of the adversary.

Exactly.
Regardless of whatever influence the adversary chooses to exert, you will still resist. What causes you to have this conviction? Is it God doing the work for you? If so, then the adversary becomes pointless since God will always win over Satan. I've been trying and trying to figure out why you can't seem to see something so simple, but I'm starting to think it's becasue we have a different understanding of what freewill means. You seem to see it in some kind of theological sense where people have the freedom to be good apart from God or to work out their salvation through the perfection of good works, thus shunning any need for Grace. I don't think that is what free will means. That kind of thing is pride.

 

[smaller]

"What the tempter does" is not the issue. Our freedom to resist or go along with the tempter is the issue (James 4:7).

It's exactly the issue. Sin is of the devil. We all sin. Do the math.

Freewill does not depend on us changing the temptor. Regardless of how he tempts, we have the freedom to resist.

The fact that we have to "resist a will" that is not our own makes your own position kind of a mute point. Yes, we do have to 'resist a will' that is not our own, that operates within our will. It should be seen for the "foreign agent will" that it is, and an internal intruder upon our own will.

The existance of evil isn't the issue, either. I don't think anyone has argued that evil does not exist. The question is why does evil exist and the answer is that it exists so we have something not to choose. Satan put intense pressure on Job and yet Job resisted, not because he was kidding himself or because God coerced him to resist, but because he, Job himself, had a personal conviction that he would never curse the Lord no matter how horrible the circumstances.

Good and evil internal evil is an unavoidable conclusion to anyone who sees themselves, internally, accurately. I don't term "evil" as any type of freedom nor will any choices applied avoid the facts of having internal evil to contend with. The internal evil of NO PERSON will ever be justified by any choice or actions of anyone. It is simply EVIL. No choices will eradicate it. The most obvious choice that freewillers make is to deny it is even within to contend with, and they attempt to "justify" their own evil thoughts when there is no justification available. We can reign over, but we can not logically eliminate the "construct" that God Himself has placed us all into.

I don't know what you mean by "only external messures" but I'm guessing you are referencing my comments on obedience to the commands of Jesus, since you talk about "moral dictates". Grace is there for the times when we sin, but by it's very nature grace can only be there for people who need it. If we are not responsibile for our own choices then how could we need grace or forgiveness?

Paul was abundantly clear that if/when he did good, evil was still present within him. Romans 7:21. This is A LAW that no one escapes from no matter how much 'freewill' they apply to the fact.

God can exert a powerful influence in our lives. He listens to us. He communicates with us. He acts on our behalf and patiently guides us, but those things never override our personal will. We always have the choice to say no to God. That's what "searing the concience" means. It is this choice which makes us so precious and valuable to God; creatures who follow him because they choose to and not simply because he's programmed them to.

The fact that God's Will is invoked into the world of man's will AGAIN defies the notion of any will operating apart from His Will.

That is why I termed the will of man as a mixture of 3 wills. Gods, the tempter's and ours. It is impossible to eliminate any of the 3 from any equations of will other than by personal fancy to neglect the other 2 in favor of their own.

We could even further define that God's will is fully against the tempters will operating within us, and in this WAY, God is even our enemy in that engagement, because this Divine Tension is operates adversely, within us. God can not possibly be FOR the will of the tempter operating within us and will in fact be AGAINST that working adverse will, inclusive of all such evil actions in thought, word and deed.

- things can only come as a result of the choices we make in life.

Freewill is just an assertion, and not much more than that. I generally object to the whole posture of it for many reasons. Most adherents think they will be 'rewarded' based on the exercises of their supposed freewill. And therefore stake their theological lives on it, as they must, because of how they see the end game. To me such are attempting to "earn" their Grace.

Grace is and will always be UNMERITED favor. We do not "merit' a single bit of same by "earning" anything of it by our willing actions. We live "better" because of Grace, but did not earn it as a merit of our own living in it.

What we choose to do with our freedom is a completely different topic. This topic, as I understand it now, is the question of whether or not the freedom to choose exists in the first place.

No freedom of choice you may choose to apply can possibly apply to the other 2 wills that are also in play. You don't 'answer' for the will of Satan nor do you or I "control" or "manipulate" or "barter" The Will of God by our actions or choices.

Again, I think you are confusing the issues. Of course God's will is superior to our own. I can't see that anyone argued otherwise. The question was never about who's will was superior. The question was about our own, personal, god-given will, which you've mentioned above. You examined your will and found God's will to be superior.

I would term the Will of God as the ONLY WILL that really matters. Whatever other wills happen to exist as a substrata are both temporal and serve The Greater Will, who WILL have His Own Perfect Will Outcome regardless of any other will.

The fact that God's will is superior to yours should tell you that your will is not in perfect harmony with God's will, though ultimately that is what God wants

We can will ourselves to death and it will never even hit the radar screen of Gods Will nor will "our will' EVER, no, not EVER, make itself into GODS WILL. That would be just a gigantic theological fallacy. But I've seen the posture from freewillers trying in vain to "make themselves like God" though the exercises of supposed freewill choice. I might even term such postures as "personal will worship."

Exactly.
Regardless of whatever influence the adversary chooses to exert, you will still resist.

Well, I think you may be starting to see the point. Yes, we do have an adversary who exercises an ILL WILL within us all, and no such will can possibly reasonably term itself as FREE by any stretch of the imaginations.

Yet above this all, Gods Will Prevails, regardless of our present circumstances.

I do believe Gods Will is adverse to the workings of the adversary in any/all of us. It is on this ground that a rightful FEAR of God, the beginning of Wisdom, emerges. I am not willing to justify the will of the tempter within, as it is nonsense to even try it.

We all come bearing THIS WILL within us, before God:

Hebrews 10:22
Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

Why in the world would I ask God for anything but destruction for that evil conscience, in all it's thoughts, words and deeds? And in fact that is THE PROMISE of the Gospel. That evil, sin and death WILL BE destroyed. This is the christian HOPE. We might understand that we are standing up to our collective eyeballs in all of those conditions, waiting for that eventuality.

Not "covering it up" so God won't see it by the exercise of personal will power.

The "best" any of us are offered in this present world is containment of that internal evil adverse will, that we would not be SLAVES of it in the external senses. But Paul himself landed on the spot of being the "chief of sinners" after salvation. So maybe we are not seeing the end game as Paul did? And like the roles of hypocrites and liars better? [Not saying this personally to you, but to the christian arena in general.]

Did anyone really hear PAUL??? Is there really "any church" that sees and presents the Apostle Paul as the chief of sinners, and HOLDS THAT UP for OUR end game? Our GOAL?

Not.

Yet within Paul that is EXACTLY the picture of an Apostle FULLY engaged within, with THE TEMPTER. This should be our "christian expectation." Yet not showing ONE SPOT of contamination and captivity, in the external senses. We have in Paul, an honest, thank God, honest Apostle. Paul personally, daily, sought to be RIPPED APART, to be CUT IN HALF, by this exercise in RAPTURE. To 'attain,' in his present life, his FINAL DIVISION. His resurrection. And every generation of believers with this true and truthful HOPE seeks the same and is of the 'same mind.' Paul sought THE RESURRECTION, his PERSONAL RESURRECTION, every day of his earthly life. And I do as well. We all do. We just don't know what we are seeing to escape from, to get away from. We can try to cover up evil, sin and temptations with some fantasy exercise of personal will power, or we can confront it, and HOPE for it's ENDing.

In the 7 churches of Revelation, the workings of Satan, of evil and sin, were addressed to ALL of them. I believe we are promised A DAY that we will ALL hear what The Spirit is saying to us in every church. And THEN the end will come in full force, from God in Christ, like a fire and a like a flood. When I observe like in this, I mean LIKE in The Divine, Perfect Way.

The FIRE Is Gods Love. The flood, His Mercy. These are the Divine Instruments of final destruction.