FREE WILL

[jasoncran]

for seven days straight in the town of new llano,louisana while walking from my apartment to burger king i heard God say this

"jason, when will you surrender to me? how long will you do it your way?" i answered" no, i am unworthy, what if i sin again?" and God would say"leave that to me and i will clean your life, come and serve me". i then said" no lord i dont think i can do it"

those may not be the exact words as its been 15 yrs since that but i remember its was God and i know it was God who did speak yet i denied him.

 

[ivdavid]

And therein lies your biggest misunderstanding of what I’m saying.

You're right. I have misunderstood you. What I thought you said earlier is different from what I perceive you saying now. That is why it seems there is the need for clarification - which in this post I shall seek.

Okay, I am going to state what I think you are saying - and you'll have to check and correct wherever I misunderstand. Thanks. Regarding the authoritative basis for doctrinal beliefs, I think you're saying that you are against group X who claim that man has such authority and you're against group Y who claim that the Bible has such authority and that you are for group Z who claim that Jesus is the authority. Have I got this much right?

your quote:
"I also became convinced that whatever anyone claims about the content of the Bible, it is to be subjugated to the Bible itself."
Are you still convinced about this - from what I've read, I think you no longer are because this falls under the "Bible has authority" group. Am I correct? And this is also what you refer to as sola Scriptura, right? At least, this is what I mean by sola Scriptura.

your quote:
"There are some who believe that their interpretations are not interpretations, just what the Bible is saying in different words."
I think you see yourself falling under this description. Am I right?



Now, help me get this straight. If you answered yes to my first question, You don't think that man nor the Bible are the authoritative source of doctrinal beliefs but that only Jesus through the Holy Spirit in us is. I need to know how you meant that. I'll give a crude illustration of how I think you meant that - and you correct me if I've got it wrong.

So if a man, as distinguished and religiously renowned as he may be, comes up to me and says "Jesus is a god but not God", I will reject his authority to put forth such a doctrine - on the basis that he is mere man and because Jesus in me through the Spirit denies this.
Also, if a contemporary translation of Scripture is given to me, with "Bible" written over its cover, and John 1:1 is opened up to me and reads - " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." - I will still reject it because it is still less than Jesus Himself who is in me through the Spirit and He still denies this.
Jesus in me alone has the final authority to state what is truth and what is not.

Is this how you meant your denying of man and Bible as final authorities?


If this is not how you meant it, then how do you determine if something is the truth? If so, is it not confirmed by God in Scripture which is consistent with itself and the Spirit in you? What I mean is - is there any belief that you hold presently that you attribute to being taught by the Spirit in you but cannot make a case for it from any of the Scriptures?

Well, as for me, this is what I believe -
Whatever I read from the Bible or whatever I listen to, from any man, I may privately interpret in my mind as man myself. It will be very flawed when it's my interpretation - because of unsound translations, incomplete knowledge of man or my own lack of wisdom in interpretation.
If left to myself, it would definitely remain misunderstood. But the Spirit of grace in me teaches me the truth - either as I read or after I have read and made my interpretations. The Spirit corrects my interpretations by teaching me the lies to reject and the truths to embrace. Who does this - the Spirit in me. How is it done - by leading me to other parts of Scripture to confirm the truth or to reveal the inconsistency of the lie.

I'll repeat my earlier question to you in another way - when one has a belief different from another, and both of them claim to be taught of the same Spirit, only one of them can be right at most or both of them are wrong. How does one justify his own conviction that what he believes as true is indeed absolutely true? Does he say his own conviction of it being from God is the basis for his believing it to be true. Then man(his own conviction) becomes the authority of that belief. Or does he seek consistency and confirmation from Scripture (led by the Spirit)? There Scripture(revealed as God's Word) becomes the authority. I am unable to see how else you could learn truth. Fill in on your process of increasing in the knowledge of God and coming into all truth.

I cannot separate the working of the Spirit in me from the function of the Bible. The Bible is definitely not God but it is without doubt involved in the process of learning about Him when taught by the Spirit. Look at it as Jesus in you being the teacher and the Bible being the book He's teaching from and the lesson is about God Himself. In that sense, when I refer to the Bible for knowledge on God, receive such knowledge as taught by God in me, and then am moved to respond to His glory by worshiping Him, have I ended up worshiping the Book or God that it contains truth about?

 

[Elijah674]

for seven days straight in the town of new llano,louisana while walking from my apartment to burger king i heard God say this

"jason, when will you surrender to me? how long will you do it your way?" i answered" no, i am unworthy, what if i sin again?" and God would say"leave that to me and i will clean your life, come and serve me". i then said" no lord i dont think i can do it"

those may not be the exact words as its been 15 yrs since that but i remember its was God and i know it was God who did speak yet i denied him.

So? Get with it!
Peter had to weep bitterly before being converted. We all went through about the same thing! (No tears, surely NO Eternal Life!) Check out Acts 7-9 for what Saul (Paul to be) went through at Stephan's trial while being the reason for his execution! And the 'pricks' of conscience Christ tell's us of in Acts 9! (STRIVINGS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.. Gen. 6:3) And think of what Saul gave up in his TOTAL SURRENDER TO CHRIST in satan's eyes?? Matt. 4:9! Saul had it made in old Israel as far as the carnal life finds it.

Notice what Christ required in Acts 9:5-6 of what MUST BE DONE! (see verse 18's last part! Christ had and has a Church! It is interesting that all Christ would have had to do was 'SPEAK' the Word for his healing, but He sent him to the Church that He had shortly before gave the 'keys' to heavens kingdom to.

Many here could give a testimony on 'free will's fight' that might be interesting? (myself included) but it would most likely be moved elsewhere by the mods huh?

--Elijah

 

[jasoncran]

So? Get with it!
Peter had to weep bitterly before being converted. We all went through about the same thing! (No tears, surely NO Eternal Life!) Check out Acts 7-9 for what Saul (Paul to be) went through at Stephan's trial while being the reason for his execution! And the 'pricks' of conscience Christ tell's us of in Acts 9! (STRIVINGS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.. Gen. 6:3) And think of what Saul gave up in his TOTAL SURRENDER TO CHRIST in satan's eyes?? Matt. 4:9! Saul had it made in old Israel as far as the carnal life finds it.

Notice what Christ required in Acts 9:5-6 of what MUST BE DONE! (see verse 18's last part! Christ had and has a Church! It is interesting that all Christ would have had to do was 'SPEAK' the Word for his healing, but He sent him to the Church that He had shortly before gave the 'keys' to heavens kingdom to.

Many here could give a testimony on 'free will's fight' that might be interesting? (myself included) but it would most likely be moved elsewhere by the mods huh?

--Elijah

i have since repented, that very week i got news that i might got to jail, i repented when i heard that.

of course that wasnt the end of the stiffness of my nature but a repentance of a sin i fell into did the trick and that was a month or two later. that later prayer was when i really believe that i allowed God to change me.

 

[ivdavid]

Semantics has to do with the meaning of words. What we believe has to do with the meaning assigned to words. So if your understanding has changed it is not due to the meaning of words.

No, I reiterate what I've said. I believed 2 different things because they meant 2 different things to me.

Take this for example -
FC - "Being united “eventually†is an interesting way of putting it."
This is not a big issue in itself as you'll see - but it serves the purpose of a good example here.
A working definition of the word "eventually" is - "at the end of a period of time or a series of events".
Here, you have assigned the meaning to 'end of a period of time' as 'end of our world'. I meant it as simply 'the end of a series of events' - namely the discussions on this topic. I had Acts 15,Gal 2 in mind when I wrote the "eventually" because Paul came into this Jerusalem council with a defense on why the gentiles shouldn't be yoked with the ways of the circumcised. After hearing their defense, the elders in Jerusalem too "eventually" were united in belief - and proved that they were led by the same Spirit. My intended meaning being - we may not be united right now on a belief but like them, we too would be united by the same Spirit who leads us, after the series of events that the Spirit will take us through ie "eventually" we'd be united in our beliefs when taught of the same Spirit. Have I clarified this sufficiently?

My point being - in our discussion so far, both of us have "assigned different meanings" to the "same words" thereby ending up "believing" different things. That's totally possible - and if you say it is because of private interpretation, so it is - then what isn't? You shouldn't be against private interpretation - you should rather emphasize the teaching and correction of the Spirit that accompanies such interpretation.

In verse four, Jesus is not referred to as chief Lord, but as the chief shepherd. The two words have two distinctly different meanings.

Okay...what according to you is the contextual difference between Lord and Shepherd here?


Also, please tell me what you have understood by the words "believing in Christ". Thanks in advance.

 

[smaller]

Jesus was not addressing the thoughts that the pharisees were having in this passage, he was addressing their motives.

The scriptural case for the progression of sin from thought to word to deed and sin's connection to the devil is quite secure. The RCC for example in every service in the communal confession submit to the fact that we sin in thought, word and deed. Re-terming thoughts to motives is kinda futile. A person has a motive. The devil has a motive. Both are played out in man. The motive of one does not make it the motive of the other.

That is apparent when Jesus describes how they would fast and then make themselves look pale so that everyone would know they were fasting. They weren't fasting or following the Law for the right reasons, they were simply doing so for personal recognition. Everything they did appeared to be right because they were following the Law, but because their hearts were not right their actions did not matter.

Again, if you accept the fact that mankind is not alone in thought, and Jesus did specifically address 'children of the devil' in those men, all of your above view is faulty. Every word of it. Why? Because you have zero accounting for the thoughts of the other party, the devil, operating in those men. When I say devil that is inclusive of any devil, not just their chief master. As a result of that type of blind accounting, false judgments arise within you and a certain type of denial or resistance to Word facts is also shown in you, openly. This is the existence of either outright blindness caused by the blindness of the devil, or the resistor talking. Most people don't have a clue that they are being pawned.

You may argue that we cannot control our hearts or motives but we can.

Point 1
I've said before, the instant you deny the operation of the tempters thoughts within your own mind, another entity that is not you, you have already been gamed and it makes a lie within. Such minds are already defiled and are not 'in truth.' I do not count that issue against the person holding the position, but the influence of the devil who makes a lie in that persons mind. The battle is lost already right there.

Point 2
Regardless of your external actions or even controlling your 'own' motives, the devils thoughts within you or anyone else have not changed nor has their operation. Any amount of religious paint can be applied to the outside of the tomb, but the inside is where there is constant battle. Those who claim they have no battles in their minds with the very real powers of darkness and that such actions by the powers of darkness are factually sins transpiring 'in them' are already victimized pawns and living a basic lie. A hypocritical lie. This is the exact matter that Jesus hated because He KNEW instantly the other parties were in control of such minds and that is where He met them and called them out, head on.

If I tithe a certain amount but then later make some comment about how much I tithed, then it is clear that my heart was not right in my tithe. If I tithe discretely, then I am tithing for the right reasons.

And again you are basically overlooking the entirety of the observations. Many believers are just not able to come to grips with this matter because resistance in their own minds is not allowing accurate sight. As stated again, I don't care what type of thing you as a believer do on the good side of the ledger. That is 'expected and natural' from any believer as a course of our new nature. To outright lie within ones mind about the operations of evil from the tempter, an entirely different entity than any of us, and say it does happen is not just a logical fallacy and a lie. To go on and 'justify' that working in us and ignore that it is there when we all carry it is again the most basic of a lie. When we come before God, we 'all' come carrying that 'other working.' As such there is a requirement of honesty within if one desires to 'hear' accurate. If honesty does not prevail in a persons mind, they will receive nothing from Gods Words as they just can not hear accurately. They will continually falsely justify themselves thinking it is strictly them.

Paul had evil present with him. Paul had a devil. That didn't change during his entire lifetime. Paul was justified. None of the workings of the devil in him were justified. IN effect, there were two entirely separate operations going on in and with Paul, and with every believer. God deals with believers in one way, the good ways, and God resists all the activity of the tempter that is factually in all of us.

Elementary Word Principal 101:

In short, every Word of God applies to us, and also applies to what we carry on the dark side of the ledger. When Jesus spoke to Satan in Peter, every dire Word that is spoken in the entire Bible applied to 'Satan in Peter' at that moment. And none of those dire Words applied to Peter. Conversely, none of the good Words of God applied to Satan in Peter at that moment, and none of the good actions of Peter would be attributed to Satan. Do you understand this most elementary principal?

I will say this. That no man can understand these facts until they acknowledge the truth of them. Until then, they are simply blinded to the obvious by the workings of the tempter 'within' them, religious paint and repentance notwithstanding.

I never made that implication. I even said that adulterous thoughts are evil which implies that evil in the mind is evil.

And notice how subtle your words are in voiding the connection to the tempter. You see until you acknowledge the fact that another 'will' that is not yours as a believer is in operation 'within' your mind, you are spiritually blinded to this particular matter. When you do acknowledge that fact, then you also understand the logical fallacy aka a lie that exists in anyone who holds their minds to be free of that working when it's not. You may very well have free will, but your willpower does not extend to the will of the devil and you can NOT stop tempting thoughts from coming in exercising all the power of will that you have. Those who claim they do are liars. Temptation is an everyday way of life for anyone who is in Truth. That is where we 'make war' with the devil. Within our MINDS. If the devils will prevails in our minds, then the devil escalates that war to sin words, then to sin deeds. At the deeds point there is a TOTAL SLAVE of the devil in operation. Nearly all of christianity, and particularly in the freewill camps they openly show their spiritual blindness by blaming only the person and ignoring the devils operations. All such camps are spiritually blind and they promote nothing but lies. This is exactly why Christianity is so utterly fragmented and argumentative. They simply do not acknowledge the 'other working' that is within them all. They don't have a clue, and most of them never will in this present life unless God Himself decides to remove that particular form of imposed blindness. They can hear this fact, they can read this fact, but every single time the DEVIL will steal those facts from their minds and blind them to his presence. happens every day.

I follow what you're saying here, but that opens up the issue does one really have the free will to commit to follow Christ rather than the free will to avoid a sin.

You have your will. The powers of darkness are not your will. Don't confuse one with the other. Your 'good' decisions will avail them NOTHING.

I don't see how linking free will to an external action is a far cry at all. If anything it is a far cry not to. If you look up will in any dictionary it is going to state that is an action rather than a thought.

As stated prior, to cover up the fact that thoughts of the tempter are in your own mind is futile. Whatever you do, you also continually carry that other working. Nothing on the good side of whatever you do will be accounted to that working. And to say you don't have it is again, a basic logical fallacy. This understanding if it sinks in, will change how you think and you should rightfully question every evil thought within you as not being 'from you alone' asthat is not the case.

If we have entertain adulterous thoughts that is a sin.

Yeah, I call that 'artful dodging.' Some believers think that if they don't 'dwell' on those thoughts, that makes it 'not a sin.' It was and is a SIN of the devil within the instant it hit your MIND. Whether you 'entertain' it or not, it was still A SIN, and one committed by the tempter in your own mind. So, 'artful dodging' is again, a sign of the operations of deception of the tempter in that persons mind forcing them to falsely think it's not a sin if one doesn't entertain it.

If we act on adulterous thoughts is that not another sin? Just because we have an evil thought does not mean that we can then act on that thought without any further consequence because we have already had the thought. We are told that we will not be tempted beyond what we can bear, which implies that we have the option to give in to a temptation or to stand against it. Even Jesus was tempted, thus He was not alone in these matters either, yet He resisted the temptations.

You can continue to look on the outside of the cup all you want. When you repent of any evil thought, it will change the operations of the tempter exactly zero. And no amount of your own repentance will do the tempter within one bit of good.

enjoy!

s

 

[smaller]

Yoamocuy (and smaller)

Due to the fall, we can sin without sinning outwardly. We can sin in thought where the action may be simultaneous to the thought and more inward than outward, and thus may go unnoticed by others. Jesus said, “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.†(Mt 5:28 KJV)

I've already acknowledged that fact. What you and most overlook however is the presence of the tempter that is not the person who is in operation in such minds. That logically places the activity of TWO entities who are not the same, in MAN. There are the thoughts of the man, and then the imposed thoughts of the tempter. WHO THEN is doing the 'sinning' therein? I say only the tempter trying valiantly to enslave that victim.

David had a problem with lust, which apparently is a common trait, especially among human males. At least according to and in modern American culture. “It happened, late one afternoon, when David arose from his couch and was walking on the roof of the king’s house, that he saw from the roof a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful. And David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, “Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?†So David sent messengers and took her, and she came to him, and he lay with her. (Now she had been purifying herself from her uncleanness.) Then she returned to her house.†(2 Sam 11:2-4 ESV) The reason that Bathsheba was out there to be looked at was because she was involved in a purification ritual. David could see her from his vantage point on the roof, and saw that Bathsheba was beautiful. He lusted after her, otherwise he wouldn’t have inquired about her. It is an example of committing adultery in his heart before it became an outward act. And like any sin, it can snowball if not dealt with immediately. He killed her husband in an attempt to hide his adultery. If a strong person like David wasn’t immune, what chance have we got? It is an example of why it is important to walk by the Holy Spirit. It is the only difference between David and we who are in Christ. God sent Samuel to David. We have the Spirit that dwells within (Rom 8:9, 11).

All very fanciful, but overlooking again the prior observation. One can not say David's deceptions that escalated in him and that enslaved him and caused him not only to commit adultery, but to kill his friend and co-warrior were apart from the workings of deception of the tempter within his own mind. All sins are factually connected to the devil by 1 John 3:8.

It is a simple fact that the thoughts of the tempter are continually imposed in peoples minds. That makes two operations of will by two different parties transpiring therein.

s

 

[yoamocuy]

The scriptural case for the progression of sin from thought to word to deed and sin's connection to the devil is quite secure. The RCC for example in every service in the communal confession submit to the fact that we sin in thought, word and deed. Re-terming thoughts to motives is kinda futile. A person has a motive. The devil has a motive. Both are played out in man. The motive of one does not make it the motive of the other.



Again, if you accept the fact that mankind is not alone in thought, and Jesus did specifically address 'children of the devil' in those men, all of your above view is faulty. Every word of it. Why? Because you have zero accounting for the thoughts of the other party, the devil, operating in those men. When I say devil that is inclusive of any devil, not just their chief master. As a result of that type of blind accounting, false judgments arise within you and a certain type of denial or resistance to Word facts is also shown in you, openly. This is the existence of either outright blindness caused by the blindness of the devil, or the resistor talking. Most people don't have a clue that they are being pawned.



Point 1
I've said before, the instant you deny the operation of the tempters thoughts within your own mind, another entity that is not you, you have already been gamed and it makes a lie within. Such minds are already defiled and are not 'in truth.' I do not count that issue against the person holding the position, but the influence of the devil who makes a lie in that persons mind. The battle is lost already right there.

Point 2
Regardless of your external actions or even controlling your 'own' motives, the devils thoughts within you or anyone else have not changed nor has their operation. Any amount of religious paint can be applied to the outside of the tomb, but the inside is where there is constant battle. Those who claim they have no battles in their minds with the very real powers of darkness and that such actions by the powers of darkness are factually sins transpiring 'in them' are already victimized pawns and living a basic lie. A hypocritical lie. This is the exact matter that Jesus hated because He KNEW instantly the other parties were in control of such minds and that is where He met them and called them out, head on.



And again you are basically overlooking the entirety of the observations. Many believers are just not able to come to grips with this matter because resistance in their own minds is not allowing accurate sight. As stated again, I don't care what type of thing you as a believer do on the good side of the ledger. That is 'expected and natural' from any believer as a course of our new nature. To outright lie within ones mind about the operations of evil from the tempter, an entirely different entity than any of us, and say it does happen is not just a logical fallacy and a lie. To go on and 'justify' that working in us and ignore that it is there when we all carry it is again the most basic of a lie. When we come before God, we 'all' come carrying that 'other working.' As such there is a requirement of honesty within if one desires to 'hear' accurate. If honesty does not prevail in a persons mind, they will receive nothing from Gods Words as they just can not hear accurately. They will continually falsely justify themselves thinking it is strictly them.

Paul had evil present with him. Paul had a devil. That didn't change during his entire lifetime. Paul was justified. None of the workings of the devil in him were justified. IN effect, there were two entirely separate operations going on in and with Paul, and with every believer. God deals with believers in one way, the good ways, and God resists all the activity of the tempter that is factually in all of us.

Elementary Word Principal 101:

In short, every Word of God applies to us, and also applies to what we carry on the dark side of the ledger. When Jesus spoke to Satan in Peter, every dire Word that is spoken in the entire Bible applied to 'Satan in Peter' at that moment. And none of those dire Words applied to Peter. Conversely, none of the good Words of God applied to Satan in Peter at that moment, and none of the good actions of Peter would be attributed to Satan. Do you understand this most elementary principal?

I will say this. That no man can understand these facts until they acknowledge the truth of them. Until then, they are simply blinded to the obvious by the workings of the tempter 'within' them, religious paint and repentance notwithstanding.



And notice how subtle your words are in voiding the connection to the tempter. You see until you acknowledge the fact that another 'will' that is not yours as a believer is in operation 'within' your mind, you are spiritually blinded to this particular matter. When you do acknowledge that fact, then you also understand the logical fallacy aka a lie that exists in anyone who holds their minds to be free of that working when it's not. You may very well have free will, but your willpower does not extend to the will of the devil and you can NOT stop tempting thoughts from coming in exercising all the power of will that you have. Those who claim they do are liars. Temptation is an everyday way of life for anyone who is in Truth. That is where we 'make war' with the devil. Within our MINDS. If the devils will prevails in our minds, then the devil escalates that war to sin words, then to sin deeds. At the deeds point there is a TOTAL SLAVE of the devil in operation. Nearly all of christianity, and particularly in the freewill camps they openly show their spiritual blindness by blaming only the person and ignoring the devils operations. All such camps are spiritually blind and they promote nothing but lies. This is exactly why Christianity is so utterly fragmented and argumentative. They simply do not acknowledge the 'other working' that is within them all. They don't have a clue, and most of them never will in this present life unless God Himself decides to remove that particular form of imposed blindness. They can hear this fact, they can read this fact, but every single time the DEVIL will steal those facts from their minds and blind them to his presence. happens every day.



You have your will. The powers of darkness are not your will. Don't confuse one with the other. Your 'good' decisions will avail them NOTHING.



As stated prior, to cover up the fact that thoughts of the tempter are in your own mind is futile. Whatever you do, you also continually carry that other working. Nothing on the good side of whatever you do will be accounted to that working. And to say you don't have it is again, a basic logical fallacy. This understanding if it sinks in, will change how you think and you should rightfully question every evil thought within you as not being 'from you alone' asthat is not the case.



Yeah, I call that 'artful dodging.' Some believers think that if they don't 'dwell' on those thoughts, that makes it 'not a sin.' It was and is a SIN of the devil within the instant it hit your MIND. Whether you 'entertain' it or not, it was still A SIN, and one committed by the tempter in your own mind. So, 'artful dodging' is again, a sign of the operations of deception of the tempter in that persons mind forcing them to falsely think it's not a sin if one doesn't entertain it.



You can continue to look on the outside of the cup all you want. When you repent of any evil thought, it will change the operations of the tempter exactly zero. And no amount of your own repentance will do the tempter within one bit of good.

enjoy!

s

I don't feel like I've made myself clear. I know that the devil plants ideas and thoughts in our mind. I also know that thoughts are the precursor to deeds. There is a daily battle in the mind. I acknowledge all of that which you have stated and I have believed that for a long time. I don't see how anything I have said implies otherwise. You said, "You have your will. The powers of darkness are not your will. Don't confuse one with the other. Your 'good' decisions will avail them NOTHING." Are you then suggesting that we have a will, it is just not free because of the imposing will's of the devil and of God? If that is your implication, then I can agree with that. My disagreement is with your view on motives. I believe that the devil does place thoughts in our mind but that we can choose to fight against those.

 

[childeye]

i had the CHOICE to ignore him.

its like this. my wife is bi-polar and i have to talk her into taking meds. now then she needs them but at times wont take them.

how much more are we then that? we know what sin is. and yet due to our pride we refuse. God is willing to heal and save but we must allow him to do it.

for God is longsuffering willing that none should perish.

besides long before my salvation the jws a cult taught from their bible(which isnt that far off) that being bi/gay is a sin.

besides dont box me and say that will armenists say God isnt sovereign.

i agree with that position of calvinism.i have one more verse in the book of exezekiel that supports the contra-eternal security view.

I know you had the choice to ignore God as do we all. I don't know how many times I have had to get past the conception that freewill is predicated on having the option of disobeying God, it is not. You said it yourself quite well,"it's because of pride we refuse Him". This is where we agree. Pride is not a freewill but an inhibitor of a free will. Hence scripture says that Leviathon is King over all the children of pride.

 

[childeye]

for seven days straight in the town of new llano,louisana while walking from my apartment to burger king i heard God say this

"jason, when will you surrender to me? how long will you do it your way?" i answered" no, i am unworthy, what if i sin again?" and God would say"leave that to me and i will clean your life, come and serve me". i then said" no lord i dont think i can do it"

those may not be the exact words as its been 15 yrs since that but i remember its was God and i know it was God who did speak yet i denied him.

Sounds like the same thing that happened to me for the most part. I learned that my fear of failure was based upon my own insecurities predicated on my belief that it was up to me. The Holy Spirit showed me that in fact it was a lie that I could ever accomplish anything Godly without God. Even Moses pondered how he could ever accomplish the task God had appointed him and God said bascically He didn't like that Moses would presume God would send him out without equipping him to accomplish the task. I think God wants our submission only as evidence to us that it is only in Him that we can be healed of our disease of pride and become righteous.

 

[childeye]

Webers_Home

LOL Be merciful, oh Ceasar.

FC

You're funny.

 

[childeye]

Free will is a logical fallacy.

Why? Because neither Gods Will or the will of the devil can be logically ruled out of the wills of mankind.

Free will puts forth an extremely faulted premise because it requires mans will to stand alone, and that is simply not the case. The thoughts of the tempter are, scripturally speaking 'within' the minds of mankind without any doubt and that places the will of the devil, a will that is not mans, in the mind of the man. Mans will therefore is not alone whatsoever, and therefore not logically free.

Neither can Gods Will be ruled out of the workings of any mans will. The brothers of Joseph would be a good example. Those men were factually working the will of the devil in them as shown by their sinful actions, but God had a greater plan in mind for the entire events. In that drama we see then the wills of the men, the will of the devil who influenced them all, and the over riding Will of God for His Outcomes. All of those wills were in operation and shown to be 'in man.'

None of us can extract our wills away from the workings and intentions of Gods Will working in us, nor can we say that the will of the devil does not also work in all of us, shown by the fact that we all sin, and sin is of the devil.

s

I agree with this sound reasoning, however I reiterate again and again that such reasoning is lost if the definition of freewill is that we have a choice to make. Suppose I say, I can disobey God if I want to so I conclude I have a freewill. There is the big "IF" that for all intensive purposes evades the entire issue of whether the will is free. To get back on track, the question must be asked, Why would you want to disobey God in the first place foregoing the If? The answer inevitably has to be because you don't trust Him. Why? Because even if you say I love my flesh over God, you assume your flesh is better served disobeying God than by trusting God. God wants to spare us suffering even as He says His intentions are nothing but good toward us. Distrust is based on an corrupt image of God and such a will cannot be considered free, but decieved. Hence it would be better not to say, I have the ability to disobey God and call it freedom, but rather to say, I have the disability to disobey God and call it slavery.

 

[childeye]

I don't feel like I've made myself clear. I know that the devil plants ideas and thoughts in our mind. I also know that thoughts are the precursor to deeds. There is a daily battle in the mind. I acknowledge all of that which you have stated and I have believed that for a long time. I don't see how anything I have said implies otherwise. You said, "You have your will. The powers of darkness are not your will. Don't confuse one with the other. Your 'good' decisions will avail them NOTHING." Are you then suggesting that we have a will, it is just not free because of the imposing will's of the devil and of God? If that is your implication, then I can agree with that. My disagreement is with your view on motives. I believe that the devil does place thoughts in our mind but that we can choose to fight against those.

Usually freewill is spelled out as being able to choose to disobey God rather than disobeying Satan. Why? Because we began in obedience to God in trust of God and freedom was first proposed by Satan, implying we were blind slaves trusting God. Now in this post, the opposite is being counted as freedom, freedom from Satan rather than from God. Now this reveals for everyone here reading the semantics involved when lies mimic the Truth.

We can absolutely fight against the lies but only if armed with the Holy Spirit. One must have Truth to vanquish lies. Therefore since the Holy Spirit is what enables a man to not be deceived, it must be given by God that a man can escape sin. Shall we now again deceive ourselves by saying, "Yes but I can still disobey God?" I am in favor therefore of saying for the sake of clarity that just because a man can sin does not mean he has a freewill, but rather only if a man can not sin does he have a free will.

 

[childeye]

So? Get with it!
Peter had to weep bitterly before being converted. We all went through about the same thing! (No tears, surely NO Eternal Life!) Check out Acts 7-9 for what Saul (Paul to be) went through at Stephan's trial while being the reason for his execution! And the 'pricks' of conscience Christ tell's us of in Acts 9! (STRIVINGS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.. Gen. 6:3) And think of what Saul gave up in his TOTAL SURRENDER TO CHRIST in satan's eyes?? Matt. 4:9! Saul had it made in old Israel as far as the carnal life finds it.

Notice what Christ required in Acts 9:5-6 of what MUST BE DONE! (see verse 18's last part! Christ had and has a Church! It is interesting that all Christ would have had to do was 'SPEAK' the Word for his healing, but He sent him to the Church that He had shortly before gave the 'keys' to heavens kingdom to.

Many here could give a testimony on 'free will's fight' that might be interesting? (myself included) but it would most likely be moved elsewhere by the mods huh?

--Elijah

Don't be too hard on the Moderaters, their job is not easy. I think on this Forum they are quite sensible compared to many others I have visited.

 

[Elijah674]

Usually freewill is spelled out as being able to choose to disobey God rather than disobeying Satan. Why? Because we began in obedience to God in trust of God and freedom was first proposed by Satan, implying we were blind slaves trusting God. Now in this post, the opposite is being counted as freedom, freedom from Satan rather than from God. Now this reveals for everyone here reading the semantics involved when lies mimic the Truth.

We can absolutely fight against the lies but only if armed with the Holy Spirit. One must have Truth to vanquish lies. Therefore since the Holy Spirit is what enables a man to not be deceived, it must be given by God that a man can escape sin. Shall we now again deceive ourselves by saying, "Yes but I can still disobey God?" I am in favor therefore of saying for the sake of clarity that just because a man can sin does not mean he has a freewill, but rather only if a man can not sin does he have a free will.

I think that Inspiration 'kind of' backs that up! James 1:15
And that 'mods' thing?;) But 'i' did like the testimony!
--Elijah

 

[proveallthings]

"I have gotten myself tied up in some knots regarding "free will."
I wonder if anyone has any thoughts that might help me.

Here is what seems to be my problem:
We are all born blind to God. I was born this way, same as everyone else.

So when I hear someone say to another that they have willfully chosen to reject God, it bothers me.

It is like saying....free will is this good thing that we have within our SELVES and we use it to find God. But there is nothing good in us...

I don't THINK I used free will.....
One day, I just suddenly SAW that He WAS.

I guess I am thinking if there is any such thing as free will, it must only come into play AFTER He has cured our blindness...

Any thoughts or verses?"


To return to this original question, I think it is clearly answered in John 1:9. Every person born into mortality is blessed with the Light of Christ. This is universally identified as our conscience. When we make decisions counter to our conscience we are rejecting God. It is always our choice.

When we say that we do not have free will we are saying God controls us. It sounds nice and humble when we are talking about our living a Christian life, but if we believe this we also must believe that God forces those who are not in Christ to be so. How can we say that such a God is just?

 

[warhorse]

"I have gotten myself tied up in some knots regarding "free will."
I wonder if anyone has any thoughts that might help me.

Here is what seems to be my problem:
We are all born blind to God. I was born this way, same as everyone else.

So when I hear someone say to another that they have willfully chosen to reject God, it bothers me.

It is like saying....free will is this good thing that we have within our SELVES and we use it to find God. But there is nothing good in us...

I don't THINK I used free will.....
One day, I just suddenly SAW that He WAS.

I guess I am thinking if there is any such thing as free will, it must only come into play AFTER He has cured our blindness...

Any thoughts or verses?"


To return to this original question, I think it is clearly answered in John 1:9. Every person born into mortality is blessed with the Light of Christ. This is universally identified as our conscience. When we make decisions counter to our conscience we are rejecting God. It is always our choice.

When we say that we do not have free will we are saying God controls us. It sounds nice and humble when we are talking about our living a Christian life, but if we believe this we also must believe that God forces those who are not in Christ to be so. How can we say that such a God is just?

I think you are confusing free will, with self will. You did not not will yourself into a relationship with God, he called you, as he has called all mankind to him. But many will reject him, not because they have that free right, but because they have a free ability. God has chosen in his sovereignty not to impose his free will on all mankind yet!!! your overall conclusion however is correct.

 

[smaller]

I don't feel like I've made myself clear. I know that the devil plants ideas and thoughts in our mind. I also know that thoughts are the precursor to deeds. There is a daily battle in the mind. I acknowledge all of that which you have stated and I have believed that for a long time. I don't see how anything I have said implies otherwise. You said, "You have your will. The powers of darkness are not your will. Don't confuse one with the other. Your 'good' decisions will avail them NOTHING." Are you then suggesting that we have a will, it is just not free because of the imposing will's of the devil and of God? If that is your implication, then I can agree with that. My disagreement is with your view on motives. I believe that the devil does place thoughts in our mind but that we can choose to fight against those.

The bottom line observation remains. Regardless of your 'internal thought contention' mankinds will cannot stop that working of the tempter in their minds. That action is SIN, plain and simple and it proves that the will of man is far from free as they do not and can not stop that incursion, and of course a huge number of those internal forrays result in 'sin' externally. In other words, the devil has succeeded by prompting sin with 'all' but God in Christ. No mans will has ever stopped that from happening. And this is proof that the will is neither alone nor free.

enjoy!

s

 

[smaller]

I agree with this sound reasoning, however I reiterate again and again that such reasoning is lost if the definition of freewill is that we have a choice to make. Suppose I say, I can disobey God if I want to so I conclude I have a freewill.

The observation started a long time before your supposed choice to 'not sin.' The tempter sins in mankind continually by forcing those thoughts in the will. Your actions of choice do not control that activity, period. None of your choices can stop that working. And none of us are free from it, nor can we choose not to have that temptation inserted. It is an operation of a will that is not yours as Gods child.

There is the big "IF" that for all intensive purposes evades the entire issue of whether the will is free. To get back on track, the question must be asked, Why would you want to disobey God in the first place foregoing the If?

The will of man is not in question here. The fact remains that the tempter inserts sin thoughts in mankinds mind. Your choice is completely 'ineffective' to stop that activity. If a man acts good on the outside, but denies that the tempters thoughts in his mind is sin, that is a man under deception and an openly exposed liar.

The answer inevitably has to be because you don't trust Him.

Oh yeah? Every person who has ever lived receives sinning temptation thoughts, period. If you wanna make this personal, move along. Not interested in your charade.

Why? Because even if you say I love my flesh over God, you assume your flesh is better served disobeying God than by trusting God.

And you have a poor understanding of the battle:

Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh

Go read the balance of that scripture and see your engagements and with 'whom.'

God wants to spare us suffering even as He says His intentions are nothing but good toward us. Distrust is based on an corrupt image of God and such a will cannot be considered free, but decieved. Hence it would be better not to say, I have the ability to disobey God and call it freedom, but rather to say, I have the disability to disobey God and call it slavery.

You have no choice made for the tempter and what the tempter does, period.

enjoy!

s

 

[childeye]

"I have gotten myself tied up in some knots regarding "free will."
I wonder if anyone has any thoughts that might help me.

Here is what seems to be my problem:
We are all born blind to God. I was born this way, same as everyone else.

So when I hear someone say to another that they have willfully chosen to reject God, it bothers me.

It is like saying....free will is this good thing that we have within our SELVES and we use it to find God. But there is nothing good in us...

I don't THINK I used free will.....
One day, I just suddenly SAW that He WAS.

I guess I am thinking if there is any such thing as free will, it must only come into play AFTER He has cured our blindness...

Any thoughts or verses?"


To return to this original question, I think it is clearly answered in John 1:9. Every person born into mortality is blessed with the Light of Christ. This is universally identified as our conscience. When we make decisions counter to our conscience we are rejecting God. It is always our choice.

When we say that we do not have free will we are saying God controls us. It sounds nice and humble when we are talking about our living a Christian life, but if we believe this we also must believe that God forces those who are not in Christ to be so. How can we say that such a God is just?

God is just, no matter what He does. Consider Job. You quote John 1:9 and then through conjecture arrive at the conclusion that men have a freewill or God is not just.
Respectfully, I would ask you read further, the scripture John 1:13 where it says the children were not born of the will of the flesh, nor the will of men, but by the will of God. Vindicating this Jesus says in John 5:38 "and you have not His Word abiding in you, for whom He has sent,him you believe not". This shows one must have God's Word in one's heart to be able to believe in Jesus. A man's choice to believe is contingent on having God's Word in one's heart and obviously not everybody has this prescious commodity at their discretion. Then Jesus says in John 8:47 He who is of God hears God's words and those who are not of God cannot hear his words. How do you account for these scriptures applied to your reasoning?