FREE WILL

[childeye]

This is where I believe free will comes into play. If we didn't have the freedom of will then why does God have to tell us to repent? We make the choice to resist sin and turn away from it.

God is saying turn around, you're going the wrong way. Turn to God with all your heart. God has to tell us because He cares about us and knows we're lost without Him. Being lost is not a freewill. Turning to God, seeing and believing the Truth sets a man free in his will. The Old Testament proves that man can try to resist sin, but sin is present in mankind and must be removed. It is not a matter of choice but a matter of corruption in the mind. The New Testament is about being set free from the slavery of sin by receiving the Truth.

 

[Eventide]

Now don't act surprised. You know perfectly well God said not to eat of the fruit or you would die..

And I know perfectly well that man did not make that judgment.. God did.. God is also the one who later numbered mans days to 120 years.. not man..

 

[Eventide]

This is where I believe free will comes into play. If we didn't have the freedom of will then why does God have to tell us to repent? We make the choice to resist sin and turn away from it.

I know.. how ridiculous would that be if we didn't have the ability in the first place. 'Repent and believe the gospel'.. oh right, you can't..

They believe that Satan's lie is too strong and the gospel is powerless... unless of course that God allows these certain people to believe it.. as usual it all comes down to election and they believe that they're it.. the elect.

 

[ivdavid]

Eventide,

Just a suggestion. Take the time to understand exactly what you're opposing. I know of your zeal - just let it be tempered. Until you can state what another person believes - along with all the accompanying premises - and that other person confirms that that is what he believes, you have not understood that person's beliefs. And until you understand that belief framework, you mustn't take a stand on it.

... and the gospel is powerless...

I don't understand what power you attribute to man's hearing the Gospel. Not all who hear the Gospel obey the Gospel - so there must be something more for man to obey the Gospel apart from his hearing it. What is that?

how ridiculous would that be if we didn't have the ability in the first place.

Ridiculous is a harsh word. Tell me how you've understood God giving a law by Moses to His people which none - absolutely none - are able to keep.

 

[francisdesales]

Tell me how you've understood God giving a law by Moses to His people which none - absolutely none - are able to keep.

Said within the context of your suggestion to Eventide, I would suggest that you reconsider that "keeping the law absolutely and completely" was NOT the expectation of God for His People, NOR did the Jews believe that they must. I think this idea is based upon one verse in James taken out of context. The Jews were perfectly aware of this in their various sin offerings and Yom Kippur celebrations. The very cycle of sin and repentance is within keeping of the Law, provisions established by God Himself in His Mercy.

Men throughout the Old Testament were considered righteous who followed God's Law. No one expected or demanded that one must keep it absolutely perfectly in each and every case. That is not a Semetic line of thinking, but a modern day one.

Regards

 

[Eventide]

Eventide,

Just a suggestion. Take the time to understand exactly what you're opposing. I know of your zeal - just let it be tempered. Until you can state what another person believes - along with all the accompanying premises - and that other person confirms that that is what he believes, you have not understood that person's beliefs. And until you understand that belief framework, you mustn't take a stand on it.

I don't think it's difficult to understand, and he's obviously made himself very clear in many ways.. AND as mentioned, I don't actually get what he means by 'byword' as if that's the totality of a person dying in their sin and rejecting the truth.

I don't understand what power you attribute to man's hearing the Gospel. Not all who hear the Gospel obey the Gospel - so there must be something more for man to obey the Gospel apart from his hearing it. What is that?

It's called freedom to choose it or reject it.. God isn't forcing the gospel upon anyone.

Ridiculous is a harsh word. Tell me how you've understood God giving a law by Moses to His people which none - absolutely none - are able to keep.

Because the LAW wasn't intended to make anyone righteous.. its intent was to lead us to the one who is righteous.. it's not difficult to understand or embrace at all.. unless of course you have no capacity to understand its basic precepts.

 

[Former Christian]

Ivdavid


â€FC - "You are not considering the possibility of a growth factor."
It is because I am considering this that I cannot reconcile with your claiming that there is no way we can be sure of truth.â€

The growth factor is actually the chief evidence that we can’t be certain of what we believe. I really should mitigate that to we can’t be certain of everything that we believe. Which perhaps is closer to your own understanding of the matter. There are actually certain things that we can be certain of. Such as, Jesus being the way and the truth and the life. But we can only believe it with certainty when we experience it for ourselves. And experience is subjective so that to say that its certainty is grounds for authoritative certainty is unwarranted.


“What do you mean by authoritative here - is it forcing/manipulating someone to believe you based on your credentials - or is it sharing the truth taught to you by God as absolute truths?â€

Authority, “the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience†(Oxford Dictionary). Authority implies subjugation of one’s own opinions to the opinions of an authority. In Christianity, this refers to doctrinal authority complete with the practice of closed communion. And though Protestants claim to follow Sola Scriptura, the real authority is in the Tradition and the leadership of the denomination. Which is the same as the Catholic Church. Claims mean nothing. It is the execution of the claim that counts. And in Christianity, the execution of the claim, no matter whether it is the Church or the Bible as the authority, it is executed in the same way, through Tradition and the current leadership of the denomination. The moment we believe that the truth that we have is objective truth with certainty, is the minute we are back to the basics of denominational Christianity with all of its authoritative certainty. Again, the certainty of what we believe as those who are in Christ is due to the subjective experience of experience, which is not sufficient to warrant authority. Certainty in doctrine without humility always leads to authoritative attitudes. Defending our own current thinking on what is true is one thing, defending it authoritatively as a certainty is another.

We are to submit to those who oversee by leading as a shepherd (not rule as it is translated in the KJV and other versions in various ways), looking out for our souls (Heb 13:17). The younger is to submit to the elder, as the inexperienced submits to the more experienced as a guide for their experience; but at the same time we are to “be subject to one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.†(1 Pet 5:5 KJV) This is in contrast to authority as it is practiced in Christianity.


“I believe Paul,Peter made authoritative statements in the sense, they stated truth with absolute certainty.â€

And so they did. And if you are an Apostle of Jesus Christ who can add to Scripture, then so can you.


“I think your problem is where people cross the line - and state as absolute truth what they've not been taught of God. This is a grave issue. But does it lead to your conclusion that there can be no certainty at all?â€

You think maybe I over reacted? And how do we determine who has crossed the line? Isn’t it through our own authoritative understanding that the truth we believe is most certainly the truth? I base my conception of no certainty on the authority of Christ alone and the limitations of humanity. Consider it in the light of what I said above.


“Doctrineâ€

The Greek word used in the Bible simply means teaching, as you said. And there is only one teaching according to the New Testament. The teaching of the Apostles. It is the same as the teaching of Christ who is the source of the Apostle’s teaching. But when we start thinking that our own understanding is a teaching that is not only certain, but authoritative because it is certain, then it is no longer the teaching of the Apostles that is under consideration. It is our teaching. When Paul said to Timothy “commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.â€, what teaching was he referring to? An interpretation of what he heard from Paul? No! “the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses†(2 Tim 2:2).

When you read, “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.†or “This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?†(Gal 2:20, 3:2 KJV) Do you get the impression of a sermon, the certainty of a doctrine, or do you get the impression of an experience of life?

A good teacher of Biology is not the one who tries to interpret the facts. There are too many poor college teachers in this country who try to interpret the facts of Biology in order to exclude Evolutionism or Creationism. The good teacher sticks to the facts without any interpretation. He may try to explain the fact further to one who doesn’t understand, usually by example of the operation of the fact, but the fact is not changed by the explanation as it is by the practice of interpretation.


“I disagree that our beliefs on freewill is 'doctrinal' in the sense of merely being a theoretical study by man.â€

What is being bantered about concerning free will on this forum is doctrine sometimes complete with “proof textsâ€. On this thread it’s pretty much polarized between a yes or no answer. But there are other more complex ideas concerning the subject that include the areas in which we can and can’t exercise free will. I personally have an opinion on the subject. But how authoritative or certain is my opinion? How authoritative and certain are any of the opinions presented in this thread? To some their own opinion is so certain that it is authoritative and anyone who disagrees is under the tutelage of Satan at worst, themselves at best. This is denominational thinking.

I happen to be in agreement with Jasoncrans, that the fact that we have free will is just common sense. But this is a generalization without qualification. And there are qualifications. We can’t choose to travel to the Andromeda galaxy, at least not yet. We can’t choose to live in our present bodies for a thousand years, at least not yet. And we can’t choose to save ourselves from condemnation. We need the provision of God in Christ to accomplish that.

If the Bible teaches that we don’t have free will, then I believe in the Bible about as much as I believe in Christianity. But I don’t consider that to be certain. I may see something tomorrow that reveals to me that it is impossible for any of us to have any kind of free will because our actions are so predetermined by God that in a practical sense we are androids of the Lord created and programmed to serve him or not. But today, I don’t believe that.


“FC - "You won’t even find certainty of doctrinal truth within the pages of the Bible, no matter how much you interpret it."
A difference of opinion because of us using different meanings to the same word? Well, I believe that all that God teaches are conveyed in the Bible and that there is unambiguous consistency within and among all such teachings. â€

There was a couple of things that I was thinking of when I made that statement. First, denominations believe they have certainty of doctrinal truth, that they have interpreted the Bible correctly. To the point of authority. And to give credit where credit is due, most denominational schemas are internally consistent. But the denominational nature of Christianity and its authority claims leads to the idea that the Bible is inconsistent.

Second, while I don’t believe the Bible is inconsistent, I do realize that the Bible has some obvious discrepancies within it. Something that Christians who believe in inerrancy can’t admit to. The originals may have been inerrant and flawless. But what we have today certainly is not. Does that matter? Very much to those who believe in inerrancy, who believe that a perfect God can’t produce an imperfect Bible. But not to me because what is needed for Jesus to teach us, I believe, continues to be there. The reason that we have the Bible in such good condition compared to other ancient writings, I believe, is due to the providence of God. But I don’t discount that it could just as easily be due to the copying procedures of devout religionists.

The practice of trying to nullify discrepancies in the Bible through the practice of interpretation is unnecessary and accomplishes nothing because the discrepancies remain. Interpreters believe in their interpretations more than in the Bible. It’s a cover-up. And the Atheists are happy to point that out constantly. To act as if the discrepancies don’t exist is dishonest in my opinion.

More to follow

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Ivdavid

“FC - "The Bible is intended to be used to teach us experientially"
These verses came up -
Joh 5:38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
We need His word abiding in us - else we are unable even to believe truth. And Scriptures are not the source of eternal life - Jesus Christ is. The Bible only points to Him as testimony. So, I would never say that the Bible is an end in itself. I wouldn't say that Bible has the power to do something when God does all things. I agree that it is God who teaches us truth - and to me, that is my certainty of truth.â€

I think that we may be more in agreement than not, but just in case:

The context of these two verses include vs. 18. The Jews thought that they knew the Scriptures. Yet they sought to kill Jesus, the one whom their Scriptures wrote about. We have to be careful how we use the Bible. We can memorize the Bible until we can quote any part of it as if we are just talking to someone in natural conversation. But if we have no real understanding or experience of what the words are saying, and are not open to have any, then it’s total emptiness. The Jews were putting more faith in the words of Scripture than in the God who is its source. The idea that this refers to us needing his word abiding in us is a typically Evangelical Protestant idea, that has nothing to do with what Jesus is saying here.

Colossians 3:16-17, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.†(KJV) Again the Evangelical Protestants equate the meaning of “word†with “Bibleâ€. And in this case, the Protestants are a little closer. There are two Greek words translated as “wordâ€. One (Rhema) refers to something spoken, a word said. The other (logos) refers to something more. This is the word used here. It is the same word used in John 1:1, wherein it refers to the word as accomplishing what it speaks, through the reference of the word as creator (vs. 3). In Colossians 3, the same idea is shown in that we are to teach and admonish one another, not conversationally like rhema, but in Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual songs. These are references to experience. The Psalms are experiential in nature. It is in this way we should regard the word of Christ. Not as the Jews who search the Scriptures without having the word (logos) abiding in them, but as the word (logos) of Christ that accomplishes the experience of eternal life.

Peter in John 6:68, “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.â€. The Greek word used there is rhema showing that Peter heard the words, but didn’t understand the meaning of what Jesus had been saying any better than those who left. Peter rightly trusted in Christ even though he wasn’t certain of the truth that Jesus was proclaiming. And this is the attitude that we should have toward the Bible in relation to Christ our teacher. Our certainty should be in the living person, not in anything else, even our own understanding of what is truth.


“FC - "Scripture states that we aren’t under Law in regards to sin."
The question on Rom 6:14 was to find out what you meant by "interpretation". I think we are not on the same page there. I think this is the way you see it -
1. Man reads Bible.
2. Man understands meaning plainly; he accepts it but cannot be 'authoritative' in claiming that this is absolute truth.
3. Man is not sure of plain meaning from among multiple possibilities; he assigns a particular meaning by his own discretion/thinking/understanding. Therein Man interprets. To not interpret would be to not conclude on it till taught by God..... I think it's inevitable that one interprets, else you won't be able to conclude on anything false at all, ever,(which is not true).â€

You are thinking in terms of true/false. For us Jesus Christ is authoritatively true, everything and everyone else that appears to be authoritative is false. Interpretations are always false by their very nature. Simply because the interpreter has superimposed his own interpretation, his own ideas, his own opinions, his own thinking, upon the text. The interpreter is assuming, in a practical sense, that the author is dead or absent. This may be true in relation to human writings. This is NOT true in relation to the Bible and Christ. If the Bible is taken as an authoritative document, as it is in Protestantism, then interpretation is inevitable because it is attributing to the Bible an attribute that it doesn’t have. The real authority is Jesus the living Christ, not the Bible. Jesus uses the Bible to teach us. The Bible is a tool given, not to us to interpret, but to the Son to teach us.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 is a favorite of Protestants with good reason. It shows clearly that, the Old Testament at least, is a God-breathed document. Naturally, those who are in Christ consider the New Testament in the same light by extension. But the Protestants also conclude from this the idea of Sola Scriptura, that the Bible is the only authority in a physical sense. Why do I say in a physical sense? Because originally the idea was used against the idea of the authority of a physical person, the Pope. They consider the Bible as if it is a written Pope. And in that sense they understand that the Bible is good for doctrine, reproof, correction, and training in righteous. They live as people of the book when they should be living as a people in Christ.


“FC - "They don’t go around deliberately trying to hurt people by word or action. Rather, they try to help when they can....Some of them are even my friends."
This is a true observation. Guess we have each "interpreted" the meaning of differently.â€

I think we understand 'trespasses and sins' alike, but we may have a different understanding of the observation.


“FC - "They also walk by their conscience. And Paul refers to such people in Romans 2."
If you're referring to Romans 2:15, the purpose seems to be of drawing them into condemnation under the law by showing them that they cannot use 'not having a law from God' as an excuse - so that the news that we are "no longer under the law but under grace" is truly Gospel.â€

I was thinking of vs. 14 and 15 together. You’re right that Paul’s eventual purpose is to show that God concluded all as unrighteous so that he could conclude all righteous in Christ. Romans 4-5 shows that it is only those who are in Christ through faith and baptism into Christ who benefit from this grace of God. But here he is just pointing out that some Gentiles who don’t have the law are doing what the Jews who have the Law should be doing. We are all concluded under trespasses and sins completely for a purpose. But that doesn’t mean that all are fully operating under trespasses and sins. Think of it like Romans 5:14 where death reigned even to those who didn’t sin in the same way as Adam.


“FC - "They walk by their own soul and thus are very soulish and earthbound people."
This is new to me. Walking by the flesh and walking by the Spirit were the only 'walks' I was aware of. Do you mind elaborating.â€

The Greek word psuche means soul. It is where we get the word psychology. In the KJV, the word is translated by a lot of different words, so it can sometimes confuse the issue.

Living by the soul is not the same as living by the flesh. We are encouraged to do certain things by the soul. Such as in Colossians 3:23, “And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men†(KJV). The Greek word translated “heartily†is psuche, or soul. The meaning is with your whole soul. The body relates to the earth and the spirit relates to the supernatural. The soul is the ego or person that is in between. This has lead some to believe that man is tripartite. God created the body out of the earth and then breathed into him. God-breathed into him or Spirit-breathed into him, if that comes across any better. Then man became a living soul or person. Humanity is unique from the animals in this regard. Evolutionists can’t see that because they have no frame of reference to be able to see it. If there is no walking according to the Spirit, then there is no choice but to be centered in the earth or what’s on the earth. They know nothing else. They are centered on themselves (the soul, soulish) and on the earthly (the body, earthbound) because that is the extent of their knowledge of reality. As far as how fleshly they live depends on the person. Some are very fleshly, giving in to all kinds of vices, including adultery and murder. Others are not so fleshly, living more according to their own souls and their own culture. There are examples of this among the ancient Greek philosophers.

We, as those who are in Christ, are encouraged to walk by the Spirit and to seek those things that are above where Christ sits on the right hand of God. And in this we change our focus from our soul and the earth to heaven (Gal 5, Col 3).

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Childeye

Originally Posted by Former Christian

Childeye

I believe that everyone from Adam on down is responsible for their own thinking and their own actions. And in order for that to be true, we must have the freedom to choose what to think and do. And to me that’s free will.

Are you telling me that the Bible teaches something other than that?

FC



“Yes exactly. The New Testament teaches opposite of that.â€

Wow! I am in agreement with Jasoncran that believing that we have free will is just plain common sense. And like my daddy used to say, “If he aint got common sense, he aint got no sense at allâ€. If I agreed with you, I would believe in the bible about as much as I believe in Christianity. I for one am glad I don’t agree with you.

It is interesting to note that though the Calvinists would agree with you doctrinally, Christianity, including the Calvinists, wouldn’t agree with you in a practical sense. A basic aspect of denominationalism is the necessity of authoritative leadership. And the only reason for such leadership is because there is freewill that resists it.

Paul acted in ignorance(Ac 9:6, 1Tim 1:13) and was chosen by Christ for a special purpose (Ac 9:15).

Enemy of the gospel? I repeat. Wow!



“Satan introduced the concept of being free to disobey God and liveâ€

That I agree with. But Satan was, as usual, only partly right.

“Note if I ask someone who believes in freewill if there is such thing as an enslaved will, they will most likely say no after contemplating such a thought.â€

I would say yes. Example being demon possession.

“Free from what?â€

Not free from what, free to think or do what.

“Believing in the Christ destroys this foundation since who wouldn't trust someone who suffered and died for you? Who would seek freedom from such a God?â€

Richard Dawkins, for one.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Free Will and Genesis 3 (KJV)

6 ¶ And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Eve took the fruit and ate, then she gave some fruit to her husband who was there with her, And he ate. Nothing to interpret here. They both acted in a certain way. Did they act this way because of the devil without and sin within. Obviously not the latter because as yet there was no sin within. Not until after the action they took. So that leaves only the influence of the serpent. Paul says that Eve acted being deceived, “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.†(1 Tim 2:14) She knew God’s command, “But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.†(vss. 2-3). But she chose to follow the serpent thinking that what he said was true. But what of Adam? Paul says that he was not deceived. Adam acted with both eyes open wide knowing that what the serpent was saying was not true. He chose to eat anyway. Adam and Eve both made choices. They had free will to make these choices. They weren’t hand puppets acting out a play written by God. And that is clearly seen in the judgments of God on all concerned.

On Satan, “And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.†(vss. 14-15) He didn’t say “well done good and faithful servant for playing well the part I have given you.†God condemned Satan for what he had done. Satan had a choice to not do what he did. He had free will to choose to deceive or to not deceive. But because he chose to deceive, he was judged.

On Eve, “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.†(vs. 16) There is no mention of her being deceived because it is irrelevant to what she did. What is relevant is that she chose to follow the serpent instead of God. She had free will to make the choice that she did. And she was judged.

On Adam, “And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.†(vss. 17-19) Adam listened to his wife instead of God. Which implies that she had persuaded him, by the way. Adam had a choice to listen to his wife or to listen to God. He had the free will to make that choice. Because he chose to listen to his wife instead of God, he was judged. And he was judged more severely than his wife because he wasn’t deceived. He acted against what he knew to be true.

Obviously God has free will. And it is his will that humanity be judged in Adam in order that salvation might be offered to all (Rom 5:12-21). Adam and Eve were created in the image and likeness of God. They too had free will. Did humanity lose free will because of the sin of Adam and Eve? If so, it is irrelevant to the actions of Adam and Eve and the judgments proclaimed upon them. What they did, their actions and the choices that they made were before the fall.

Regardless of the fact that Satan was the instigator of the situation, Adam and Eve was not judged on the basis of what Satan did. They were judged on the basis of their own choices.



So now it comes down to us, the rest of the fallen race in Adam. Do we have free will?


And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. (Josh 24:15) “Choose†you this day sounds like after the fall they had free will.

If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me (Luke 9:23). The statement includes a conscience decision to follow Christ or not to follow Christ. Sounds like free will.

For there must be also heresies among you (1 Cor 11:19) The Greek word refers to a choice. Heresies refer to opinions, and the conscious decision to believe them. Sounds like free will.

Now, we can choose to believe that we don’t have free will and blame all of our negative actions on the Satan without or the Satan within. But God will judge us anyway, just as if we had the free will to commit those sins.

Are there things we can’t choose to do? I can think of many. We can’t choose to go to the Andromeda galaxy, at least not yet. We can’t choose to live in these bodies for a million years, at least not yet. And we can’t choose to save ourselves. We need the provision of God in Christ in order to be saved. We can choose to believe in God and to accept the provision that he has provided in Christ. And in that is the exercise of free will.

FC

 

[smaller]

Said within the context of your suggestion to Eventide, I would suggest that you reconsider that "keeping the law absolutely and completely" was NOT the expectation of God for His People, NOR did the Jews believe that they must. I think this idea is based upon one verse in James taken out of context. The Jews were perfectly aware of this in their various sin offerings and Yom Kippur celebrations. The very cycle of sin and repentance is within keeping of the Law, provisions established by God Himself in His Mercy.

Men throughout the Old Testament were considered righteous who followed God's Law. No one expected or demanded that one must keep it absolutely perfectly in each and every case. That is not a Semetic line of thinking, but a modern day one.

Regards

The above only serves to demonstrate a logical fallacy. The Law can not be kept perfectly, period, which serves to point out the fact of our imperfections.

Freewill says, well, in the overall context of progressively making good moral decisions, then I can be 'like God' (in the cases of those who think they finally get it perfect) or they get progressively better, and will therefore be rewarded for their freewill actions.

All of that is faulty logic. No one will be justified on the basis of freewill actions.

The Divine Intentions of God were stated not only for the Israelites of the O.T. but also again by Jesus in the N.T. as this:

Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

There is no other standard. The Standard Is Perfection. So freewill goes about seeking how to achieve that totally on it's own.

Logic may bring some to the point to understand that the ONLY way to 'achieve' that is to have GOD in and with you, which SUBJUGATES our own imperfections.

Is the actions of any freewill done apart from the workings of Gods Will in them? Of course not! On that basis alone, the will of the believer is not alone, but God is with and within them, SUBJUGATING our imperfect WILL. Free then in Christ, yes, but not FREE from the WILL of same, and certainly not 'out there' performing totally on it's own.

So, what is the point of seeking 'personal credit points' for a will that by reasoning should be subject to the Greater Will therein?

Doesn't make sense.

enjoy!

s

 

[smaller]

Free Will and Genesis 3 (KJV)

6 ¶ And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Eve took the fruit and ate, then she gave some fruit to her husband who was there with her, And he ate. Nothing to interpret here. They both acted in a certain way. Did they act this way because of the devil without and sin within. Obviously not the latter because as yet there was no sin within. Not until after the action they took. So that leaves only the influence of the serpent. Paul says that Eve acted being deceived, “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (1 Tim 2:14) She knew God’s command, “But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.” (vss. 2-3). But she chose to follow the serpent thinking that what he said was true. But what of Adam? Paul says that he was not deceived. Adam acted with both eyes open wide knowing that what the serpent was saying was not true. He chose to eat anyway. Adam and Eve both made choices. They had free will to make these choices. They weren’t hand puppets acting out a play written by God. And that is clearly seen in the judgments of God on all concerned.

On Satan, “And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” (vss. 14-15) He didn’t say “well done good and faithful servant for playing well the part I have given you.” God condemned Satan for what he had done. Satan had a choice to not do what he did. He had free will to choose to deceive or to not deceive. But because he chose to deceive, he was judged.

On Eve, “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” (vs. 16) There is no mention of her being deceived because it is irrelevant to what she did. What is relevant is that she chose to follow the serpent instead of God. She had free will to make the choice that she did. And she was judged.

On Adam, “And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” (vss. 17-19) Adam listened to his wife instead of God. Which implies that she had persuaded him, by the way. Adam had a choice to listen to his wife or to listen to God. He had the free will to make that choice. Because he chose to listen to his wife instead of God, he was judged. And he was judged more severely than his wife because he wasn’t deceived. He acted against what he knew to be true.

Obviously God has free will. And it is his will that humanity be judged in Adam in order that salvation might be offered to all (Rom 5:12-21). Adam and Eve were created in the image and likeness of God. They too had free will. Did humanity lose free will because of the sin of Adam and Eve? If so, it is irrelevant to the actions of Adam and Eve and the judgments proclaimed upon them. What they did, their actions and the choices that they made were before the fall.

Regardless of the fact that Satan was the instigator of the situation, Adam and Eve was not judged on the basis of what Satan did. They were judged on the basis of their own choices.



So now it comes down to us, the rest of the fallen race in Adam. Do we have free will?


And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. (Josh 24:15) “Choose” you this day sounds like after the fall they had free will.

If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me (Luke 9:23). The statement includes a conscience decision to follow Christ or not to follow Christ. Sounds like free will.

For there must be also heresies among you (1 Cor 11:19) The Greek word refers to a choice. Heresies refer to opinions, and the conscious decision to believe them. Sounds like free will.

Now, we can choose to believe that we don’t have free will and blame all of our negative actions on the Satan without or the Satan within. But God will judge us anyway, just as if we had the free will to commit those sins.

Are there things we can’t choose to do? I can think of many. We can’t choose to go to the Andromeda galaxy, at least not yet. We can’t choose to live in these bodies for a million years, at least not yet. And we can’t choose to save ourselves. We need the provision of God in Christ in order to be saved. We can choose to believe in God and to accept the provision that he has provided in Christ. And in that is the exercise of free will.

FC

Typical freewill fairytale above that is quite completely void of many facts.

The fact is that Adam and Eve 'sinned.' And IN THAT the will of the DEVIL was exercised and executed IN THEM BOTH. That categorically places the will of the devil as operational in them both.

It is quite pointless to view the will of Adam or Eve apart from the workings of the tempter therein. That makes TWO wills operational, and even makes the will of both of their wills subject to the greater will which achieved it's goal of sinning in them.

No person has achieved superiority of their supposed freewill to the point of not sinning in thought, word or deed other than God Himself in Jesus Christ. All other wills are factually and categorically subject to the will of the devil, who shows his superiority of WILL therein in everyone that sins, and ALL have done so and will continue to do so no matter how grandiose they 'think' their own supposed freewill abilities are. They are, nevertheless, subject to another will that is not their own. I might even say that free willers have been subject, yes subject to the idea that their will can be equal to Gods if only they performed well enough. Such an idea is in fact from Satan, who desires to be LIKE GOD. Which again shows another will working in them, trying to 'be like God' in their freewill pursuits.

No logical reasoning believer can rule out The Will of God operating in them and through them whenever they 'do good,' which again does not make 'their wills' alone, nor can the will of the tempter be ruled out from the will of man.

That makes 3 wills operational in every believer.

s

 

[francisdesales]

The above only serves to demonstrate a logical fallacy. The Law can not be kept perfectly, period, which serves to point out the fact of our imperfections.

Who said it was INTENDED to be kept perfectly, as defined by 21st century "theologians? Certainly not the Jews. Not God. Not Jesus, as per our conversations on Matthew 25. So where exactly do you get this "logical fallacy" from? I suggest you are the one perpetrating a logical fallacy.

All of that is faulty logic. No one will be justified on the basis of freewill actions.

Bravo. Did anyone here even remotely said that they were??? Another case of telling us that a square has four sides...

Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

There is no other standard. The Standard Is Perfection.

The standard is to Love as God does by human means. Not to BE God Himself...

In the above verse, you are taking the "therefore" out of context. What is the context? To love "perfectly" without fail??? NO! To love one's enemy. Not to love without ever failing. You fall into error by taking the verses out of their context - as well as misrepresenting what "perfect" means in the said verse. This is a result of your "proof texting" by taking a theology and tearing verses out of context to "FORCE" them to fit...

"Teleios" here does not meet utter and absolute perfection, as you define it. It means "brought to an end, finished". "That which we ascribe to a full grown man, mature, of age".

Verses 5:43-5:47 speak about loving one's enemies, a condition that imitates God Himself. Even the pagans love their friends. A mature and full grown Christian loves as God - loves even his enemies. Nowhere is God's perfection compared to man's, or man's inability (ability) to even ATTEMPT to achieve perfection, as you define it.

There is nothing to suggest from this group of verses that Jesus suddenly means "LOVE WITHOUT FAIL EVER". OR ELSE YOU ARE GOING TO BE A GOAT"... "Perfection" means to achieve maturity, to love our enemies. To go beyond what the pagans - and the Jews - did. Jesus is not telling us we must "bat 1000 for 1000". Maybe that is why you were so confused with Matthew 25...?

So, what is the point of seeking 'personal credit points' for a will that by reasoning should be subject to the Greater Will therein?

Doesn't make sense.

Yet again, another red herring. I suggest you consider reading my posts, rather reading into them what you think I am saying. I never said anything even closely resembling "personal credit points", nor earning salvation by our works. I fear your cliches are nowhere near what I believe on this subject.

Regards

 

[smaller]

Who said it was INTENDED to be kept perfectly,

Gods Words. The 'advice' or 'command' is to be Perfect.

That is not achievable apart from God Himself abiding therein i.e. His Will in operation within. We do not 'muster' anything of the sort of our own 'free' will.

We 'partake' of His Spirit. We do not conjure it up on our own.

as defined by 21st century "theologians? Certainly not the Jews. Not God. Not Jesus, as per our conversations on Matthew 25. So where exactly do you get this "logical fallacy" from? I suggest you are the one perpetrating a logical fallacy.

Show the fallacy please.

Bravo. Did anyone here even remotely said that they were??? Another case of telling us that a square has four sides...

The will of the believer is not apart from Gods Will, nor is it apart from the will of the devil in actions of thought, word or deed of sin. That is the scripture of the matter. Whether it is agreed on or not is irrelevant.

The standard is to Love as God does by human means. Not to BE God Himself...

If God abides in 'us' which we all claim as believers, our will is certainly not apart from His Will in operation therein.

In the above verse, you are taking the "therefore" out of context. What is the context? To love "perfectly" without fail??? NO! To love one's enemy. Not to love without ever failing. You fall into error by taking the verses out of their context - as well as misrepresenting what "perfect" means in the said verse. This is a result of your "proof texting" by taking a theology and tearing verses out of context to "FORCE" them to fit...

The failures are derived from the will of the devil, again, another will in operation 'in' man.

"Teleios" here does not meet utter and absolute perfection, as you define it. It means "brought to an end, finished". "That which we ascribe to a full grown man, mature, of age".

And not apart from the Will and Working of a will that is not 'solely' that of the believer. Trying to make the will of the believer apart from Gods will and generating His Spirit, which is LOVE is quite impossible.

Verses 5:43-5:47 speak about loving one's enemies, a condition that imitates God Himself. Even the pagans love their friends. A mature and full grown Christian loves as God - loves even his enemies. Nowhere is God's perfection compared to man's, or man's inability (ability) to even ATTEMPT to achieve perfection, as you define it.

And that would be you spinning another strawman and attacking same. I never said you of your own accord CAN operate A Perfect Will. Without God such a thing is futility.

The point being that when we love we are partaking of Gods Nature and Will in operation therein. It is simply not 'generated' solely of our own accord.

The Final Goal of God is to join us into His Perfection and Perfect Will. That Will WILL be accomplished. Mans will is 'not' capable of going there of it's own accord. It is quite impossible.

To be partakers of His Divine Nature is to be encompassed into His Will, not our own 'self' generated will. We partake of His Spirit and Will as sharers in The Divine.

There is nothing to suggest from this group of verses that Jesus suddenly means "LOVE WITHOUT FAIL EVER". OR ELSE YOU ARE GOING TO BE A GOAT"... "Perfection" means to achieve maturity, to love our enemies. To go beyond what the pagans - and the Jews - did.

Again, another strawman. When any man sins, they do so in conjunction with the will of the evil one operating in them. Pick a sin, any sin...there is the operation of the will of the devil in thought word or deed.

Neither of the other wills can be logically removed from operations in believers, or in mankind in general. Freewill 'requires' the will to be 'free' to operate entirely of and on it's own. If it is 'not' that and you concede to sharing in The Divine Will or sharing in the 'evil will' of the devil, such a will is free of neither, which is exactly why looking at a mans will alone is utterly futile.

Yet again, another red herring. I suggest you consider reading my posts, rather reading into them what you think I am saying. I never said anything even closely resembling "personal credit points", nor earning salvation by our works. I fear your cliches are nowhere near what I believe on this subject.

Regards

Then stick to the points of the observations made.

My observation is not meant to demean anyone. Only to point out that other wills are factually in operation in mans will, and therefore no mans will stands alone as 'free' of the others.

enjoy!

s

 

[WIP]

God is saying turn around, you're going the wrong way. Turn to God with all your heart. God has to tell us because He cares about us and knows we're lost without Him. Being lost is not a freewill. Turning to God, seeing and believing the Truth sets a man free in his will. The Old Testament proves that man can try to resist sin, but sin is present in mankind and must be removed. It is not a matter of choice but a matter of corruption in the mind. The New Testament is about being set free from the slavery of sin by receiving the Truth.

I agree we are lost. I contend that we are lost because of our free will. We are not puppets or robots. We chose to turn our back on God. We were not created lost but chose to be lost. Now we need to exercise our free will to choose the path of righteousness and God is calling.

 

[francisdesales]

Gods Words. The 'advice' or 'command' is to be Perfect.

You misunderstand the meaning and the context. Thus, God's Words are twisted to mean something other than the intent. Nowhere in that passage is the Bible suggesting that "man must be perfect" as you suggest. The context is about a better, more mature way of acting.

That is not achievable apart from God Himself abiding therein i.e. His Will in operation within. We do not 'muster' anything of the sort of our own 'free' will.

Again, I never suggested otherwise. I am only addressing the error of "God demands utter perfection". I didn't say that by my own will, I do anything good. Phil 2:12-13 suggests that it is God who moves me to do anything good. But it is indeed me (and God) working out my salvation.

This is called "synergy", a theme that occurs throughout the Bible.

Show the fallacy please.

I did. You are more than capable of reading that post again. Your idea of perfection does not fit within the context of Matthew 5.

The will of the believer is not apart from Gods Will, nor is it apart from the will of the devil in actions of thought, word or deed of sin. That is the scripture of the matter. Whether it is agreed on or not is irrelevant.

Again, you have a tendency of making statements that I never disagreed with. Could you please stick to what I actually am saying???

If God abides in 'us' which we all claim as believers, our will is certainly not apart from His Will in operation therein.

More of the same.

Who said it was?

The Final Goal of God is to join us into His Perfection and Perfect Will. That Will WILL be accomplished. Mans will is 'not' capable of going there of it's own accord. It is quite impossible.

Jesus tells us to do this NOW. The context is here on earth. Jesus is not suddenly giving us a command to be utterly perfect!!! He is telling us to love as God, to love as a full grown Christian, to love our enemy.

Can we do that alone? Of course not! Who would suggest that we could? Stay on the course. Address what I am stating.

Again, another strawman. When any man sins, they do so in conjunction with the will of the evil one operating in them. Pick a sin, any sin...there is the operation of the will of the devil in thought word or deed.

Yet again, I didn't say otherwise...

Do you actually read my posts, or do you have a stock answer for the topic "free will", and just post it?

Cheese, the rest is more of the same. Can you actually address what I wrote, rather than trying to place me in a cliche box?

 

[ivdavid]

I would suggest that you reconsider that "keeping the law absolutely and completely" was NOT the expectation of God for His People, NOR did the Jews believe that they must.

This is a valid point in itself - but I have no such belief of one sinful act per se making you guilty of the entire law forever. I assume that's what you're referring to. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think this idea is based upon one verse in James taken out of context.

I think you're referring to Jas 2:10. What I've understood of it is that in any work of mine, if I've acted in such a way that I have not kept all the commandments of God simultaneously in that act of mine, then that act counts as a sin and I am guilty of not keeping the law in that particular work of mine. And this applies to each and every work of mine. And by this understanding, I realize now by the conviction of the Holy Spirit, that I have never but committed sin in every single work of mine before being regenerated by God because of His grace and mercy. Hence I have transgressed the law (the OT Law in all its spiritual intent) always.
I think this is why we are pointed to the law of liberty and not the law of condemnation(because of sin in me, ie in my flesh).

The very cycle of sin and repentance is within keeping of the Law, provisions established by God Himself in His Mercy.

Are you implying that repentance and the consequent mercy,forgiveness are part of God's law of works? I'm genuinely not sure - not about it being stated but in its purpose. Is that not making the same mistake that the jews did - making everything a legal procedure, even having a contrite spirit? Repentance ought to arise when one does not keep the law - else, what are you repenting of. And mercy,forgiveness is apart from the law - for the law exacts justice. God made provisions but to miss out on the point of them defeats their very purpose. If at the end of your transgressions, you look back and say you have 'kept' the law because you have made up for it with another 'work' - namely, repentance - the significance of it all is lost?

Anyway, I meant it in this regard -
Rom 10:5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Gal 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Gal 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

Men throughout the Old Testament were considered righteous who followed God's Law.

Considering the above, I don't think anyone were made righteous by the law. And if not, my question still stands - why did God say this -
Lev 18:5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.
...if none can keep them?

[I do not ask this in a skeptical manner - I ask it only as a response to the claim that God cannot command man to do something he is not yet able to do]

 

[montanaviking]

Jennie, I don't know if you really got your question answered here. As you can see there are a couple of different thoughts on the subject of free will. Ultimately the scripture teaches that we are lost souls in need of a saviour. We can do nothing to earn salvation. We are condemned to hell because of our sinful nature and the only way out is Jesus Christ. The bible teaches we are born into sin, our hearts are wicked and we are not good. People can do good things, but people cannot BE good or righteous. That is why we need a saviour. Once we become a believer, we now have the nature of Christ within us which frees us from being a slave to sin. That is really where our free will comes in. Before Christ we are slaves to sin, after Christ we are free from sin. Do to HIS grace and HIS nature within us. Truely at that point we gain free will, for we then make choices to sin or not to sin. Even after accepting Christ we wrestle with our flesh and battle the temptations of life and indeed can chose to commit a sin. However, as a believer we are no longer LIVING in sin. We may sin now and then, but we do not have to live a life of sin. We are free from that. When a believer sins he/she is making a choice to sin. I hope this helps a little.

 

[ivdavid]

Eventide,

I wasn't referring to your response to anybody else - just your assumptions of what other beliefs are, in your post#323.

It's called freedom to choose it or reject it.. God isn't forcing the gospel upon anyone.

And here we're back to the question - Does the person who exercises the freedom to choose it have any more inherent wisdom/goodness/ability in him than the person who exercises the freedom to reject it?

Tell me how you've understood God giving a law by Moses to His people which none - absolutely none - are able to keep.

Because the LAW wasn't intended to make anyone righteous..

I am genuinely asking this because I am not sure - has this part been mentioned in the first 5 books of the Bible? And if not, the question still stands. why did God say this -
Lev 18:5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.
...if none can keep them?

 

[smaller]

You misunderstand the meaning and the context. Thus, God's Words are twisted to mean something other than the intent. Nowhere in that passage is the Bible suggesting that "man must be perfect" as you suggest. The context is about a better, more mature way of acting.

Again, that 'performance' does not exist apart from the Will of God in operation therein. It is impossible to make the 'man's will' alone in this matter.

Again, I never suggested otherwise. I am only addressing the error of "God demands utter perfection".

That IS exactly where Gods Will is going to take us. It will not be by self generated 'will' performance. It is the essence of the Gospel, to be a part of God, as One. That IS both our Hope, and our Promise.

Here, we are partial participants being exercised by an exposure to evil will in operations in man, meaning 'within' all of us, and a partial experience of the Greater Will to come.

I didn't say that by my own will, I do anything good.

So, you are not then claiming that it is your will alone? But that (correctly) at least part of the time that Gods Will is in operation? If so, that would be both a correct claim, and therefore your will is not alone. That is point 1 of my observation, that your will is not alone or free when in operation in conjunction and sharing of Gods Will.

So, now Mr. Free will is Mr. Free will AND the Will of the Greater Will. That makes two and not the sole free will of the man.

You see one can not make this claim, that it is their will and choice alone and simultaneously make this TRUTHful claim:

Galatians 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

or this claim:

Romans 8:11
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

or this claim:

1 Corinthians 3:16
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

and simultaneously claim their own will is 'free' and alone. That is simply not true. The Will of God IS operational and functioning IN believers.

So again, at a minimum, there is the believers will and His Will and Spirit Living also abiding therein.

Phil 2:12-13 suggests that it is God who moves me to do anything good. But it is indeed me (and God) working out my salvation.

Great! Then you concede to the fact that another Will that is not solely YOURS in in operation and conjunction 'with your will?' And that is no different than what I've said.

This is called "synergy", a theme that occurs throughout the Bible.

Agreed, with the obvious that your will is simply not alone. The instant you claim it is so, you have basically eradicated your Divine Compatriot Will.

I did. You are more than capable of reading that post again. Your idea of perfection does not fit within the context of Matthew 5.

I believe that God who dwelleth IN ME is Absolutely Perfect, but currently He has spared me with His Fullness in the present time. I don't think I can handle that yet. He is simply TOO GREAT for me in this present condition, that being a body of flesh. I am not Jesus. I am not God. I am a minor sharer at the present time.

Again, you have a tendency of making statements that I never disagreed with. Could you please stick to what I actually am saying???

My observation with freewillers remains twofold. We are not alone from the Will of God or the will of the devil. It's as simple as that.

Now, you've made your claim of associated Will/wills on the GOOD side of the ledger. Fess up on the other side and you will have an accurate picture of 'all' of our wills. But you see this other part is almost impossible for any believer to fess up to, even though it is a fact. They simply are not 'in Truth' when it comes to stating that the will of the devil does operate in us all when we sin in thought, word or deed. This fact sticks in the craw of the believers mind and will. WHY? Because the very fact that that will operates and exists can not 'tell the truth' of this matter, thereby proving the existence of that will therein.

They will blame and accuse themselves, their own will, the flesh, the Adamic nature, the old nature, the old man, the ego, the self, the whatever and anything else but the will of the devil operating in them. And why is that so impossible? Because that will IS in operation 'in man' and 'that will' can not speak the truth, period. This categorically shows the presence of a lying will operating in that person.

Simultaneously, nearly all freewillers will admit to the insertion of thoughts from that will, yet deny it exists as 'another will' in their minds and will.

I say they are just not able to speak the facts, that another will is busy in them inserting thoughts therein, even sin thoughts which are a sin, stealing Word from the heart and also sinning in that.

3 Wills. All operational, all observable.

enjoy!

s