Dear smaller, I like your posts giving Glory to God, and I like your statement or rather quote at the bottom.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
FREE WILL
- Thread starter Jennie
- Start date
Haha k, although I don't necessarily agree with every point you bring up, I now agree that the will is not free. I originally thought that it was each of our understanding of the word will which created our differences in belief but I now see that it was the understanding of the word free as you brought up in the beginning of our discourse. My initial understanding of that word was flawed in the sense of free will because I brought my preconceptions of the phrase free will into the discourse.
Dear smaller, I think you misunderstand my post 192. I agree with your reasoning as I said but was merely saying how semantics can keep someone from understanding it. I don't believe in freewill based on choice but rather by Christ's definition "the Truth will set you free", as in; the will can be set free from lies by the Truth. This is the battle as I understand it, the Truth against lies. I agree with your theology but was pointing out the problems with semantics and therefore the problem of using the same terms with differing definitions. It was no swipe at you. Let's not get divided through semantics, that would not be edifying. I am familiar with the scripture you advise. There is nothing I have posted that conflicts with the fact that we wrestle against principalities and powers of darkness in high places. Keep in mind when I said "You don't trust Him", I wasn't applying that to you personally. Nor was I when I said "if you say I love my flesh over God". I was refering to all men including myself. You obviously misunderstood what I wrote or rather I should have phrased it better.
Last edited by a moderator:
smaller
Member
The essence of my observations are that our wills as children of God might very well be considered not only free, but Perfect 'in Christ.'
This however does not speak to the other will(s) that factually work in us. We really do have no control over that, and even more, we are guaranteed an internal battle at the very minimum.
None of our wills control the other parties operations and they do have success in battles continually.
As often is the case with these types of matters, the framing of the doctrines are usually woefully short of encompassing all the facts, and believers get bogged down in simplistic notions when the facts are actually much more entertaining and enlightening, when one starts to 'see more' in the text.
I might say Paul was very well free, but there was another will operating in Paul that Paul had no say so about whatsoever. In that sense Paul was not free whatsoever.
Our true freedom is presented in text, undoubtedly. I consider the fullness of that promise as written, delivered, and 'after' the final battle.
In the meantime there is a war going on that few are attuned to. That war is not with our fellow man. When we rightfully view 'their minds' as factually blinded by the devil, the god of this world, our judgments should rightfully turn to the real opponent, and our prayers to God for the 'person.'
enjoy!
s
You speak of text. Are you refering to the scriptures? I don't quite understand what you mean by another will working in Paul unless you are refering to his sojourn as Saul. You also said "wills that factually work in us". What do you mean by that? Wills that are in fact working in us, or wills working in us through facts?
smaller
Member
yes, scriptures, our only real measures beyond speculations.
Paul had sin indwelling his flesh he defined as not him. Paul also had evil present with him when he desired to do good. See Romans 7:17-21 & 25 for references.
Paul also had a messenger of Satan put upon him, and that would be A DEVIL. (see 2 Cor. 12:7) And we all know that the operations of the tempter, an entity 'not us' as Gods children is active in the minds of all people.
It is not likely that our wills have any affect on the will of the tempter(s) Our wills do not control that will. That will of the tempter will do what it does, regardless. If that will loses one day, it will come back to try, again and again and again. That's just how it is.
Our wills do not control the insertion of temptation, and in fact we are promised to be 'tried' by that working. That working is of the tempter, the devil, in the mind and will of a believer. That is why I say, regardless of any choice, the operations of the tempter in mind/thought and WILL are factual, that believers can not stop that working, and that working is a SIN in that person regardless of the person or the choices they make in regards to that temptation. The temptation is always there, ever present. Maybe not virulently active where a person realizes it, but subtly so.
On a logic basis, applying scriptures, one can not reasonably rule out the operations of the Will of God in any of us, nor can we eradicate the operations of the will of the tempter.
therefore...
do the math on this matter.
My own belief is that freewill is primarily used to condemn our blinded by the devil unbelieving neighbors for not making 'the right choices' concerning God in Christ, when in fact it is an operation of the devil in those peoples MINDS, blinding same. (2 Cor. 4:4)
This logically places TWO entities and TWO operating WILLS in every person at a minimum. The man of the Gergesenes had 12,000 devils in him in full operation. To me it is outright laughable to blame that working on the man when 'all' of us were blinded by that same working. Maybe not to that extent, but the operations of the tempter in blinding minds of people is well established in the scriptures.
The devil does what the devil does. Believers who claim immunity from that working on the basis of their choices lost the battle when they claim it's just them there in their heads making 'all' the choices. Their choices don't change the workings of the tempter one little bit.
James 1:12
Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
God Himself has slated us to encounter temptation 'in mind' by the tempter. That is an operation of A WILL in the man that is not the man's will, and every last believer has succombed to that will because we 'all' sin, have sinned and will continue to do so, even if the measure is only SIN THOUGHTS.
Sin is in fact 'of the devil.' That will can not be ruled out of any man, even if not observable on the outside of the cup, so to speak.
Many believers are quite engaged in denial of these facts. To me, that simply makes them liars. No liar will receive anything from God but confusion.
enjoy!
s
When you put it that way, absence of freewill seems to make God unjust. You seem to think of only 2 possibilities - either that God controls everything and is unjust or that there is freewill and God is just - and obviously the second option alone is valid. But have you considered the possibility that God controls everything and God is just. You may not be able to see how it could be possible now but that could be because you overlooked something, right? As I have done - as I suppose all have done until God teaches us and leads us into all truth.proveallthings said:
I can't emphasize enough on the points childeye has raised here - that we must concur on the definition of freewill before discussing it - and that God is just always.
What is Freewill?
[I'm using Strong's greek dictionary and KJV for reference]
The word 'will' occurs mainly as two words - G1014 and G2309 along with their associated forms.
An example of God's will as G1014 is James 1:18 and as G2309 is 1Cor 4:19
An example of man's will as G1014 is 1Tim 6:9 and as G2309 is Php 2:13
Obviously, there is a difference between these 2 greek usages of the same english word "will" - no matter how subtle the difference is. A hint of that difference can be found in the other ways the same greek word is used in english.
For eg: in Gal 4:20-21, the same greek word G2309 amounts to "desire" and the noun form of G1012[derived from G1014] in Acts 20:27, Acts 27:42 amounts to "counsel".
So G2039 "will" is more of having an inherent desire in us whereas G1014 "will" is making a choice of volition. For eg: If I had the sudden desire to buy a chocolate, I would say - "My will [2309] is to buy chocolate." But contrast this with the following 2 statements where I choose either to buy it or not - "My will [1014] is to buy chocolate." , "My will [1014] is not to buy chocolate."
When you refer to freewill as the freedom of making a choice of volition[1014], then I'd agree that man has that freedom. I guess that's how most people supporting freewill refer to it as. But the people against freewill are questioning the freedom of your desires[2309] - can you generate a desire in yourself? You may become conscious of a desire in you but what is the source of that thought - where did it come from? Are you free in that?
You may concede that in this sense, we do not have the freedom of desire but since we do have the freedom of choice, it shouldn't matter - we could choose not to act on the sinful desires while we could choose to act on the good desires. I have reservations against that too which we shall see in my next post....
...continuing,
When I have a desire but eventually chose either to act on it or not act on it - what could be the process?
We do see that our final actions and imaginations follow our 'counsel' [1014] directly. But where does the 'counsel' come from? I imagine it to be this way - Our desire passes through our mind - our mind then processes it based on the beliefs of the heart and the understanding that the mind has so far - this way our mind compiles a counsel on whether this ought to be done or not and states the reason/motive/intent for it. After this counsel is compiled, we merely execute the actions of such counsel. We claim this to be our choice, because there is no external factor involved between the desire entering the mind, and us executing the counsel.
This is where we need to differentiate between the flesh and the spirit. The old man and the new inward man. The mind of the flesh has corrupt understanding; the heart of the unbeliever has lies fed into it instead of the truth. So consider this scenario when I was an unbeliever - I had the desire[2309] to do something. The desire entered my fleshly mind. My mind processed it according to the untrue beliefs of my heart. My understanding was darkened by deception and was blinded by a veil - so much so that the conscience was seared by hypocritical or hardened false-justifications. The end result would obviously be corrupt - my counsel was flawed. Of course, I had complete freedom in all of this per se, in that I wasn't influenced externally in making up my counsel[1014] and acting on it, but could I ever do good this way? Please note, counsel does not limit only to actions, it includes our intents too - I might end up choosing the right 'act' but for the wrong reasons and it still is sin. Better still, let's define 'act' as the sum total of all our outward actions, inward imaginations and the corresponding intents.
Now do you see why we need God's regenerative work when we were unbelievers. He knows that our heart of stone is deceitful in that it contains deceitful lies as beliefs. He knows that our understanding in the flesh is corrupt in that it always makes the wrong connections/interpretations of the beliefs of the heart. This is why God takes out our heart of stone and gives us a heart of flesh. This is why He gives us a renewed spirit of mind - in fact, the mind of Christ Himself through His Spirit. All these are set in our earthen vessel as a new creature - the inward man - inside our fleshly tabernacle.
Let's look at what happens now - I have a desire. Desire passes through the mind of Christ, is processed based on the truth that is placed in my regenerated heart, the counsel is good and my members execute such counsel. But here I can't claim credit for this, because it is Christ in me who has influenced this desire from beginning to end. Of course, I could get arrogant and state that I could make my own choices - and perhaps God will permit that - in that He'll refrain from working in me. Let's see what happens there - I have desire. Desire passes through my fleshly mind[which still exists in the outside man], the true beliefs of the heart are processed in a distorted manner by this corrupt understanding, we do not receive pure counsel, we end up acting on such counsel and we sin. This, I think, is God's way of telling us to depend on Him constantly and never to walk by the strength of our flesh.
So we see, that man acting by the strength of his flesh will always act out the desires of the flesh and hence will continually sin. That is the state of a sinner before being saved. He does not simply break God's law here and there - he has never kept it a single time. God shows mercy on such a person when He regenerates him and puts His Spirit in him - and then Christ works in him till God's good work is completed in him. What else do you mean by "believing in Christ". The moment Christ ceases to work in you, you cease to do good. And this applies to every moment of your life. "Faith" itself does not signify something we do - it signifies that we cannot do anything good and hence looks to One who can do it in us. And just in case, we might attribute our 'faith', our looking to him as our own work, God says even that is a gift of God because our flesh could not even obey that commandment of God. And lest you pride yourself of having chosen to 'accept' that gift, God says that you never did that of your own stony heart - He had to give you a heart of flesh and tear open your veil covering your mind, for you to see His glory and readily be inclined to accept all that He does in you.
So, where exactly are you free? Why try to claim credit for your own goodness when you are the same sinner as everybody else. Do you think in your heart that you're in any small manner, more self-righteous than another who doesn't believe. Is not boasting of your inherent virtues a boast of the flesh? What else could it be if it isn't attributed to God? And if it is attributed to God, then why do you stake a small claim, no matter how small? We need to depend on God wholly, from beginning to end.
Note, my usage of the word 'you' in this post is not addressed to anybody personally, it refers to a generalized person which includes myself along with the reader.
When I have a desire but eventually chose either to act on it or not act on it - what could be the process?
We do see that our final actions and imaginations follow our 'counsel' [1014] directly. But where does the 'counsel' come from? I imagine it to be this way - Our desire passes through our mind - our mind then processes it based on the beliefs of the heart and the understanding that the mind has so far - this way our mind compiles a counsel on whether this ought to be done or not and states the reason/motive/intent for it. After this counsel is compiled, we merely execute the actions of such counsel. We claim this to be our choice, because there is no external factor involved between the desire entering the mind, and us executing the counsel.
This is where we need to differentiate between the flesh and the spirit. The old man and the new inward man. The mind of the flesh has corrupt understanding; the heart of the unbeliever has lies fed into it instead of the truth. So consider this scenario when I was an unbeliever - I had the desire[2309] to do something. The desire entered my fleshly mind. My mind processed it according to the untrue beliefs of my heart. My understanding was darkened by deception and was blinded by a veil - so much so that the conscience was seared by hypocritical or hardened false-justifications. The end result would obviously be corrupt - my counsel was flawed. Of course, I had complete freedom in all of this per se, in that I wasn't influenced externally in making up my counsel[1014] and acting on it, but could I ever do good this way? Please note, counsel does not limit only to actions, it includes our intents too - I might end up choosing the right 'act' but for the wrong reasons and it still is sin. Better still, let's define 'act' as the sum total of all our outward actions, inward imaginations and the corresponding intents.
Now do you see why we need God's regenerative work when we were unbelievers. He knows that our heart of stone is deceitful in that it contains deceitful lies as beliefs. He knows that our understanding in the flesh is corrupt in that it always makes the wrong connections/interpretations of the beliefs of the heart. This is why God takes out our heart of stone and gives us a heart of flesh. This is why He gives us a renewed spirit of mind - in fact, the mind of Christ Himself through His Spirit. All these are set in our earthen vessel as a new creature - the inward man - inside our fleshly tabernacle.
Let's look at what happens now - I have a desire. Desire passes through the mind of Christ, is processed based on the truth that is placed in my regenerated heart, the counsel is good and my members execute such counsel. But here I can't claim credit for this, because it is Christ in me who has influenced this desire from beginning to end. Of course, I could get arrogant and state that I could make my own choices - and perhaps God will permit that - in that He'll refrain from working in me. Let's see what happens there - I have desire. Desire passes through my fleshly mind[which still exists in the outside man], the true beliefs of the heart are processed in a distorted manner by this corrupt understanding, we do not receive pure counsel, we end up acting on such counsel and we sin. This, I think, is God's way of telling us to depend on Him constantly and never to walk by the strength of our flesh.
So we see, that man acting by the strength of his flesh will always act out the desires of the flesh and hence will continually sin. That is the state of a sinner before being saved. He does not simply break God's law here and there - he has never kept it a single time. God shows mercy on such a person when He regenerates him and puts His Spirit in him - and then Christ works in him till God's good work is completed in him. What else do you mean by "believing in Christ". The moment Christ ceases to work in you, you cease to do good. And this applies to every moment of your life. "Faith" itself does not signify something we do - it signifies that we cannot do anything good and hence looks to One who can do it in us. And just in case, we might attribute our 'faith', our looking to him as our own work, God says even that is a gift of God because our flesh could not even obey that commandment of God. And lest you pride yourself of having chosen to 'accept' that gift, God says that you never did that of your own stony heart - He had to give you a heart of flesh and tear open your veil covering your mind, for you to see His glory and readily be inclined to accept all that He does in you.
So, where exactly are you free? Why try to claim credit for your own goodness when you are the same sinner as everybody else. Do you think in your heart that you're in any small manner, more self-righteous than another who doesn't believe. Is not boasting of your inherent virtues a boast of the flesh? What else could it be if it isn't attributed to God? And if it is attributed to God, then why do you stake a small claim, no matter how small? We need to depend on God wholly, from beginning to end.
Note, my usage of the word 'you' in this post is not addressed to anybody personally, it refers to a generalized person which includes myself along with the reader.
I agree with everything you say and they are my same observations. The reason why I yet am able to believe that we can have a freewill is in the only logical use of the term wherein Jesus says the Truth will set you free so as to make the distinction between an enslaved will and a free one. While sin exists through the lust of the flesh and as you implied through hypocritical blame under the guise of responsibility, I yet see the way a person can attain a righteousness that is not hypocritical since we can yet have mercy for those who sin against us. Also the Holy Spirit has power to convict us and his grieving over our sin is also a Godly sorrow. All sin must be motivated by believing some lie though it may be subtle. Truth will set you free.
Former Christian
Member
Ivdavid
In answer to your first question, no. I am not a third group. I am outside of Christianity altogether.
In answer to your next question, Sola Scriptura refers to idea that the Bible is more authoritative than men. It was originally used against the Pope of Rome. Unfortunately, Luther and his peers didn’t apply it to themselves. Thus Protestantism was born. The Bible is a written document that has no authority of its own. It has not authority of its own because it has no life of its own. It either has life through its human interpreters or it has life through Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. Thus Sola Scriptura in an authoritative sense is quite impossible. In fact, Protestants don’t practice Sola Scriptura. They practice authoritative interpretation on Sola Scriptura.
In answer to your next question, no. I don’t believe in the practice of interpretation. I try not to interpret the Bible at all. Unfortunately when you’ve spent a number of years interpreting the Bible, it is a hard habit to break. So I don’t fall under the venue of those who are saying the same thing as the Bible in different words. That would put me in the same position of the interpreters of Christianity who, rather than just believing what the Bible says in its own words, interpret the words to have a different meaning in their own words.
You said, “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?â€
The question is very revealing of your Protestant understanding of the Bible. As is the rest of what you wrote thereafter. My question to you is, how do you know that any case that you make from the Bible for a particular doctrine is actually a case from the Bible and not from your own interpretation of the Bible? You say that in the end what you know comes from the Bible. But does it actually come from the Bible or just your own interpretation of the Bible? In the end, are you trusting in Jesus to teach you what the Bible is actually saying, or are you trusting in your own ability to interpret the Bible correctly?
And don’t look at these things just in the light of yourself as an individual. Consider them in the light of a community. All of us who are in Christ are part of a community, of one community, the Body of Christ. In Christianity, in a practical sense by their existence as distinct communities, each denomination considers itself to be the true practical expression of that one community. Don’t they each claim to make their case for their distinct existence from the Bible? Now, I am referring to conservative Churches here, such as the Orthodox and Catholic Churches and the Protestant Churches who believe in common that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and claim that they can make a case for their belief systems from the Bible itself, whether or not anyone else agrees with the case they have made. Liberal Churches naturally don’t understand the Bible in this way.
You obviously believe in the legitimacy of the practice of interpretation in relation to the Bible.
The Oxford Dictionary definition of interpretation, “the action of explaining the meaning of something†or “an explanation or way of explainingâ€. The meaning of explanation, “a statement or account that makes something clear†or “a reason or justification given for an action or belief.†I don’t believe in the practice of interpretation for the simple reason that I believe that interpretation is an exercise of the mind of man. An authoritative interpretive doctrinal statement that is intended to make something clear only makes a doctrine clear to the creators of the doctrinal standard. To those who have interpreted the Bible to mean something different than the doctrinal standard, the doctrinal standard muddles rather than clarifies.
Regarding 1 Peter 5:1-5, the contrast is between those who rule the flock as masters and those who lead the flock as shepherds. In Christianity, the elders are rulers, Lords of the flock, determining what the flock will believe and do. Sometimes overtly as the Catholics, sometimes subtly through a doctrinal standard or sermonizing. Paul put it this way, “Become imitators of me as I also imitate Christ†(1 Cor 11:1). There is only one Lord, Jesus Christ. There are many shepherds, of which Christ is the chief shepherd. The Oxford Dictionary definition of shepherd, “a person who tends and rears sheep†or “to guide or direct in a particular directionâ€. The definition of Lord that corresponds to the Greek word, “a master or rulerâ€. The definition of lead that corresponds to the Greek word, “to show (someone or something) the way to a destination by going in front of or beside themâ€. A Lord rules. A shepherd leads.
You asked, “Also, please tell me what you have understood by the words "believing in Christ". Thanks in advance.â€
John 3:16 in the KJV, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.†Note the phrase, “believeth in himâ€. This is the common translation followed by most English translations. Now, Romans 6:3 in the KJV, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?†Again this is the common translation of the prepositions followed by most English translations. Note the two different prepositions in these two verses. “In†in the first and “into†in the second. Now, if you think that these two prepositions mean the same thing, then what I’m about to say will be meaningless to you.
The Greek prepositions in both of these verses are the same. Yet the English translators chose to translate the Greek word differently. Why? The reason becomes apparent when you realize that the idea of believing in Christ and being baptized into Christ is a Tradition that continues to the present day.
The Western Church and the original protestants both understood that we are to believe in Christ in order to be Justified. That is why the controversy between Justification by faith and the works that express that faith and Justification by faith alone wherein works expresses that faith after Justification has already been achieved, took on such importance.
The Greek has a word, a preposition, that means “inâ€. But in these verses a Greek word that means “into†is used. The Christian grammars of the Koine Greek will make a distinction between a primary meaning and a secondary meaning. And in making that distinction, one can choose which meanings of these words to use. It basically makes the prepositions interchangeable. Not the best thing if one is a Sola Scriptura advocate. Such an idea makes the Bible appear to be subjective, as if the source of the Bible is not God, but men.
The Greek word used here means into and is translated correctly in Romans. And the phrase should read in John, and in the other verses in John that use this phrase, “faith into Christâ€. Faith into Christ and baptism into Christ is how we become “in Christâ€. We are not to believe in Christ as if he is just some religious philosopher from the past, like Aristotle or Marcus Aurelius.
I would like to use the actual Greek words to make what I am saying clearer. But it has been my experience that Greek words don’t transfer over to a forum post. Maybe it does here, I don’t know and don’t want to take the time to find out. Perhaps for future reference, someone could enlighten us as to what is possible.
I am unconcerned by the Justification by faith controversy because I don’t believe that it is our own faith that Justifies us. It is the faith of Christ that Justifies us. But that is a different subject and there is a different thread that concerns Justification by the faith of Christ.
You can say “that’s your opinionâ€, the ever popular expression of disagreement. Bu only if you grant me the same privilege to believe that it is “faith in Christ†that is the opinion.
Wow! You guys have been busy since I was here last.
FC
In answer to your first question, no. I am not a third group. I am outside of Christianity altogether.
In answer to your next question, Sola Scriptura refers to idea that the Bible is more authoritative than men. It was originally used against the Pope of Rome. Unfortunately, Luther and his peers didn’t apply it to themselves. Thus Protestantism was born. The Bible is a written document that has no authority of its own. It has not authority of its own because it has no life of its own. It either has life through its human interpreters or it has life through Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. Thus Sola Scriptura in an authoritative sense is quite impossible. In fact, Protestants don’t practice Sola Scriptura. They practice authoritative interpretation on Sola Scriptura.
In answer to your next question, no. I don’t believe in the practice of interpretation. I try not to interpret the Bible at all. Unfortunately when you’ve spent a number of years interpreting the Bible, it is a hard habit to break. So I don’t fall under the venue of those who are saying the same thing as the Bible in different words. That would put me in the same position of the interpreters of Christianity who, rather than just believing what the Bible says in its own words, interpret the words to have a different meaning in their own words.
You said, “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?â€
The question is very revealing of your Protestant understanding of the Bible. As is the rest of what you wrote thereafter. My question to you is, how do you know that any case that you make from the Bible for a particular doctrine is actually a case from the Bible and not from your own interpretation of the Bible? You say that in the end what you know comes from the Bible. But does it actually come from the Bible or just your own interpretation of the Bible? In the end, are you trusting in Jesus to teach you what the Bible is actually saying, or are you trusting in your own ability to interpret the Bible correctly?
And don’t look at these things just in the light of yourself as an individual. Consider them in the light of a community. All of us who are in Christ are part of a community, of one community, the Body of Christ. In Christianity, in a practical sense by their existence as distinct communities, each denomination considers itself to be the true practical expression of that one community. Don’t they each claim to make their case for their distinct existence from the Bible? Now, I am referring to conservative Churches here, such as the Orthodox and Catholic Churches and the Protestant Churches who believe in common that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and claim that they can make a case for their belief systems from the Bible itself, whether or not anyone else agrees with the case they have made. Liberal Churches naturally don’t understand the Bible in this way.
You obviously believe in the legitimacy of the practice of interpretation in relation to the Bible.
The Oxford Dictionary definition of interpretation, “the action of explaining the meaning of something†or “an explanation or way of explainingâ€. The meaning of explanation, “a statement or account that makes something clear†or “a reason or justification given for an action or belief.†I don’t believe in the practice of interpretation for the simple reason that I believe that interpretation is an exercise of the mind of man. An authoritative interpretive doctrinal statement that is intended to make something clear only makes a doctrine clear to the creators of the doctrinal standard. To those who have interpreted the Bible to mean something different than the doctrinal standard, the doctrinal standard muddles rather than clarifies.
Regarding 1 Peter 5:1-5, the contrast is between those who rule the flock as masters and those who lead the flock as shepherds. In Christianity, the elders are rulers, Lords of the flock, determining what the flock will believe and do. Sometimes overtly as the Catholics, sometimes subtly through a doctrinal standard or sermonizing. Paul put it this way, “Become imitators of me as I also imitate Christ†(1 Cor 11:1). There is only one Lord, Jesus Christ. There are many shepherds, of which Christ is the chief shepherd. The Oxford Dictionary definition of shepherd, “a person who tends and rears sheep†or “to guide or direct in a particular directionâ€. The definition of Lord that corresponds to the Greek word, “a master or rulerâ€. The definition of lead that corresponds to the Greek word, “to show (someone or something) the way to a destination by going in front of or beside themâ€. A Lord rules. A shepherd leads.
You asked, “Also, please tell me what you have understood by the words "believing in Christ". Thanks in advance.â€
John 3:16 in the KJV, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.†Note the phrase, “believeth in himâ€. This is the common translation followed by most English translations. Now, Romans 6:3 in the KJV, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?†Again this is the common translation of the prepositions followed by most English translations. Note the two different prepositions in these two verses. “In†in the first and “into†in the second. Now, if you think that these two prepositions mean the same thing, then what I’m about to say will be meaningless to you.
The Greek prepositions in both of these verses are the same. Yet the English translators chose to translate the Greek word differently. Why? The reason becomes apparent when you realize that the idea of believing in Christ and being baptized into Christ is a Tradition that continues to the present day.
The Western Church and the original protestants both understood that we are to believe in Christ in order to be Justified. That is why the controversy between Justification by faith and the works that express that faith and Justification by faith alone wherein works expresses that faith after Justification has already been achieved, took on such importance.
The Greek has a word, a preposition, that means “inâ€. But in these verses a Greek word that means “into†is used. The Christian grammars of the Koine Greek will make a distinction between a primary meaning and a secondary meaning. And in making that distinction, one can choose which meanings of these words to use. It basically makes the prepositions interchangeable. Not the best thing if one is a Sola Scriptura advocate. Such an idea makes the Bible appear to be subjective, as if the source of the Bible is not God, but men.
The Greek word used here means into and is translated correctly in Romans. And the phrase should read in John, and in the other verses in John that use this phrase, “faith into Christâ€. Faith into Christ and baptism into Christ is how we become “in Christâ€. We are not to believe in Christ as if he is just some religious philosopher from the past, like Aristotle or Marcus Aurelius.
I would like to use the actual Greek words to make what I am saying clearer. But it has been my experience that Greek words don’t transfer over to a forum post. Maybe it does here, I don’t know and don’t want to take the time to find out. Perhaps for future reference, someone could enlighten us as to what is possible.
I am unconcerned by the Justification by faith controversy because I don’t believe that it is our own faith that Justifies us. It is the faith of Christ that Justifies us. But that is a different subject and there is a different thread that concerns Justification by the faith of Christ.
You can say “that’s your opinionâ€, the ever popular expression of disagreement. Bu only if you grant me the same privilege to believe that it is “faith in Christ†that is the opinion.
Wow! You guys have been busy since I was here last.
FC
Adullam
Member
I agree with FC!
But I would not put myself outside of Christianity for this.
Yes, in our day there is an incredible amount of confusion concerning the faith of Christ. But should we abandon the term Christian to mean something other than a disciple of Christ?
Does this not muddy the water even more?
I am also trying to clarify the true meaning of the bible with the true revelation of Christ in actual experience. But I prefer to do so from a standpoint of brotherhood...as being all things to all men.
So with the Christians...although many have opted for a diverted gospel in many cases...I am a Christian.
I have found many believers who may have some faulty understanding and wrong terminology, yet the hearts are for the Lord!
Should we abandon the brethren altogether because of a subversion of the truth? Or should we stand against that subversion while reclaiming the bible and it's proper place according to the faith?
But I would not put myself outside of Christianity for this.
Yes, in our day there is an incredible amount of confusion concerning the faith of Christ. But should we abandon the term Christian to mean something other than a disciple of Christ?
Does this not muddy the water even more?
I am also trying to clarify the true meaning of the bible with the true revelation of Christ in actual experience. But I prefer to do so from a standpoint of brotherhood...as being all things to all men.
So with the Christians...although many have opted for a diverted gospel in many cases...I am a Christian.
I have found many believers who may have some faulty understanding and wrong terminology, yet the hearts are for the Lord!
Should we abandon the brethren altogether because of a subversion of the truth? Or should we stand against that subversion while reclaiming the bible and it's proper place according to the faith?
Former Christian
Member
Smaller
“All very fanciful.â€
OKAAAY.
“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.â€
Ah yes. The Devil made me do it. Adam blamed Eve and Eve blamed Satan. There’s no way we’re ever going to take responsibility for anything ourselves. Nothing ever changes. There is no real reason to repent because its not our fault. We didn’t have anything to do with it. The Devil made me do it.
Sorry, I don’t buy it. There are way too many commands in the Bible for me to believe in such a thing. And I don’t mean just the Law.
“And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.†(Rev 22:17-19 KJV) Sounds like we have a choice to me.
FC
“All very fanciful.â€
OKAAAY.
“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.â€
Ah yes. The Devil made me do it. Adam blamed Eve and Eve blamed Satan. There’s no way we’re ever going to take responsibility for anything ourselves. Nothing ever changes. There is no real reason to repent because its not our fault. We didn’t have anything to do with it. The Devil made me do it.
Sorry, I don’t buy it. There are way too many commands in the Bible for me to believe in such a thing. And I don’t mean just the Law.
“And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.†(Rev 22:17-19 KJV) Sounds like we have a choice to me.
FC
Former Christian
Member
Childeye
Originally Posted by Former Christian
Webers_Home
LOL Be merciful, oh Ceasar.
FC
You're funny.â€
Thank you. That was my intention.
FC
Originally Posted by Former Christian
Webers_Home
LOL Be merciful, oh Ceasar.
FC
You're funny.â€
Thank you. That was my intention.
FC
Former Christian
Member
Adullam
You still believe that Christianity refers to the community of believers. So, for you what you say is reasonable.
But I no longer see Christianity in the same light as you do. To me, Christianity is a community that includes anyone who desires to call themselves a Christian. To me, Christianity is a community of institutions with a long history, some longer than others. To me, Christianity is denominational in nature and always has been. To me, Christianity has nothing to do with the Bible, other than the claims of Christians that their interpretive opinions, many of which have gained authoritative status, is related to the Bible. I would be a hypocrite to continue to be a part of Christianity seeing it in that light.
As for the term Christian, I think that I have made myself clear elsewhere why I no longer use that term to refer to myself.
I understand that there are “Catholics†within the Catholic Church who no longer believe as a Catholic. They only continue to practice Catholicism because they are loathe to abandon their brothers, friends and relatives, just because there is a subversion of the truth. They want to make a stand for the truth from within. Are they right to do so? They certainly think so. And until they themselves come to see things differently, then they do what they feel they must do.
They don’t see that making a stand from within, however long that might last if they are truly making a stand, actually further convolutes the truth so as to make it of none effect. The community will eventually have to ask the obvious, “If you don’t believe what we believe, why are you here? If you are still here, then you must still believe it. Or are you a troublemaker disturbing our peace?†Luther already went through that. Jesus and the Apostles already went through that. The examples of what they had to go through should be sufficient to give anyone the wisdom that neither a stand nor a change can be effectual from within. The leaders of the denomination not only have the power to authoritatively discern true doctrines, but they also have the authority to remove those who don’t believe the same as the community, or at least to practice whatever form of closed communion that they practice.
We should meet together as an expression of the Body of Christ, not with a particular denomination of Christianity, or as another denomination of Christianity. And that wouldn’t be as difficult as it seems. The first century believers didn’t need to build special buildings to meet in,. So also us. After the destruction of the Temple, all they had left were the homes of the believers. They already had been meeting in homes, they just continued to do so. After they were scattered from just meeting in Jerusalem, they had quite an effect. There is no need of rulers. There is need of leaders, leaders who will lead us into a deeper relationship with Jesus Christ. Christ should always be Lord. If someone comes in and tries to impose their denominational interpretations upon us we should follow the suggestion of Paul. We don’t have to receive the interpretations. Just continue to walk by the Spirit.
This is just by way of a practical suggestion. Just as yours is. I’m sure there are other practical suggestions out there.
FC
You still believe that Christianity refers to the community of believers. So, for you what you say is reasonable.
But I no longer see Christianity in the same light as you do. To me, Christianity is a community that includes anyone who desires to call themselves a Christian. To me, Christianity is a community of institutions with a long history, some longer than others. To me, Christianity is denominational in nature and always has been. To me, Christianity has nothing to do with the Bible, other than the claims of Christians that their interpretive opinions, many of which have gained authoritative status, is related to the Bible. I would be a hypocrite to continue to be a part of Christianity seeing it in that light.
As for the term Christian, I think that I have made myself clear elsewhere why I no longer use that term to refer to myself.
I understand that there are “Catholics†within the Catholic Church who no longer believe as a Catholic. They only continue to practice Catholicism because they are loathe to abandon their brothers, friends and relatives, just because there is a subversion of the truth. They want to make a stand for the truth from within. Are they right to do so? They certainly think so. And until they themselves come to see things differently, then they do what they feel they must do.
They don’t see that making a stand from within, however long that might last if they are truly making a stand, actually further convolutes the truth so as to make it of none effect. The community will eventually have to ask the obvious, “If you don’t believe what we believe, why are you here? If you are still here, then you must still believe it. Or are you a troublemaker disturbing our peace?†Luther already went through that. Jesus and the Apostles already went through that. The examples of what they had to go through should be sufficient to give anyone the wisdom that neither a stand nor a change can be effectual from within. The leaders of the denomination not only have the power to authoritatively discern true doctrines, but they also have the authority to remove those who don’t believe the same as the community, or at least to practice whatever form of closed communion that they practice.
We should meet together as an expression of the Body of Christ, not with a particular denomination of Christianity, or as another denomination of Christianity. And that wouldn’t be as difficult as it seems. The first century believers didn’t need to build special buildings to meet in,. So also us. After the destruction of the Temple, all they had left were the homes of the believers. They already had been meeting in homes, they just continued to do so. After they were scattered from just meeting in Jerusalem, they had quite an effect. There is no need of rulers. There is need of leaders, leaders who will lead us into a deeper relationship with Jesus Christ. Christ should always be Lord. If someone comes in and tries to impose their denominational interpretations upon us we should follow the suggestion of Paul. We don’t have to receive the interpretations. Just continue to walk by the Spirit.
This is just by way of a practical suggestion. Just as yours is. I’m sure there are other practical suggestions out there.
FC
smaller
Member
Ah yes. And you're not listening. The devil is in operation. Who is to say the devil made 'you' do anything when in fact it is the devil in operation.
The devil didn't 'make you' think tempting thoughts, which are 'sin thoughts. The devil places such in the will/mind and has the access to same to do so. That makes it an action of the devil. So your premise is a flawed leap.
If you accept the facts as Jesus taught, that Satan enters where the Word is sown, then it is entirely logical that Satan entered Adam immediately after the blessing Words of God were sown upon Adam. From that point forward it is impossible to look at Adam or Eve as the sole occupants of their minds.
We know that 'do not eat' was 'a law' to Adam. We also know that the law is for the lawless. It is quite easy to see also that the devil is lawless. THAT LAW was very well meant for the DEVIL. I have a difficult time seeing Adam as the sole occupant of his own mind, given the facts as Jesus taught them. Adam was the son of God. (Luke 3:38) I have no uses to see Gods son as 'lawless.' That leaves only one other suspect. Do the math.
Though we can not see the progression of sin in Adam's mind, we can certainly say that the workings of sin in Adam were not one whit different than in anyone, a progression from thought to word to deed. Presuming that the thought of sin was already present in Adam, placed therein by the devil, making the devil therein, in Adam's mind as the tempter, then the reasoning of the Law was in resistance to that lawless one operating therein. The next progression of sin is in word, which we also see in operation in Eve. She could not recount the law accurately and she has 'lust' also in operation prior to eating. ALL of that is a working of sin, which same again, is of the devil.
So many just utterly fail to account for that 'other party' and the result is extremely faulted judgments upon Adam and Eve and a total failure to account for the workings of the devil in them.
All the 'personal responsibilities' in the world exercised by man does not stop the operations of the tempter in their minds. You can claim all the vain glory you want on how that never happens to you via personal responsibility, and I will simply laugh at such ignorance flying in the face of facts. It is a most hypocritical stance.
You don't buy it because you had a little voice in your head that says: it's still your fault, or more accurately, 'it's the fault of the people.' That is fwiw, a working of the devil in such minds. How can anyone possibly have an accurate view when they have a tempter in their minds in operation therein?
Please consider the devil did it, and not 'made me' do. We know that sins are not counted against mankind. (2 Corinthians 5:19) This again only leaves one remaining suspect. We also know that those who commit sin (again, in thought word or deed) do so as a slave of the devil. (1 John 3:8, John 8:34)
And what might one think about law in relationship to the tempter? One might think that the law prompts the tempter to tempt to break same continually via the operations of thought insertions.
You see it is really quite pointless to view the law apart from the temptations of lawlessness inserted by the devil. This categorically places that tempter (or his minions of similar operators) in the minds of all.
You can choose all you want to, and you can also deny the obvious workings of the tempter in you, thinking your 'choice' is his choice. I'm sure the devil will be impressed at how very good your choices are and will repent at the first opportunity.
enjoy!
s
Former Christian
Member
Jasoncran
I'm having a bit of trouble with this message thing. It shows "Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 2 of 2" without any way to change any thing. I have already lost one other message to cyberspace. And apparently yours has decided to follow him. I don't like the method used, wherein one is interrupted by a window that one has to cancel in order to continue what one was doing. There is no way to read or respond to a message that can't be found.
Perhaps you can help me out here.
Former Christian
I'm having a bit of trouble with this message thing. It shows "Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 2 of 2" without any way to change any thing. I have already lost one other message to cyberspace. And apparently yours has decided to follow him. I don't like the method used, wherein one is interrupted by a window that one has to cancel in order to continue what one was doing. There is no way to read or respond to a message that can't be found.
Perhaps you can help me out here.
Former Christian
Former Christian
Member
Smaller
Well, since you think that I’m of my father the devil, there doesn’t seem to be much reason carry this conversation any further. I don’t suppose that you might consider that your view is wrong? Seems to me you’re giving more credence, authority, and power to Satan than he is due.
FC
Well, since you think that I’m of my father the devil, there doesn’t seem to be much reason carry this conversation any further. I don’t suppose that you might consider that your view is wrong? Seems to me you’re giving more credence, authority, and power to Satan than he is due.
FC
smaller
Member
never said that whatsoever, but nice try on 'another' strawman.
If you want to say the tempter inserts zero temptation thoughts in your mind, have at it.
Former Christian
Member
Jasoncran
Three messages gone now. And the last one I decided to read before it got away. Got away anyway. I hit read and nothing happened.
To all others it may concern, it would be best to wait until this is resolved before any more messages are sent.
Thanks
FC
Three messages gone now. And the last one I decided to read before it got away. Got away anyway. I hit read and nothing happened.
To all others it may concern, it would be best to wait until this is resolved before any more messages are sent.
Thanks
FC
Former Christian
Member
Smaller
didn't know how else to take it.
FC
didn't know how else to take it.
FC