FREE WILL

[childeye]

Former Christian;553123]Childeye

What my daddy meant was, that without common sense people are fools. Not that they’re senseless. They believe in things that have no relationship to what is obviously and intuitively true and real. It’s a common proverb in the south where he was from, at least it used to be a common proverb. People seem determined to talk themselves out of common sense nowadays. Especially Christians who seem to be able to believe in all kinds of nonsense, and then claim that the Bible says it, when the Bible says no such thing. It takes a lot of fear of reality to try so hard to hide from it.

I agree with your Daddy. The proverb is common everywhere in some form or another and is a favotite of mine. Common sense says you can't hold people responsible for being ignorant via freewill doctrine.

“All lies at the end of reasoning end in hypocrisy, I've revealed your hypocrisy therefore what you are believing in is not true. Are you now too proud to admit it? that would be Satan causing you to deny the Truth.”

It would be hypocrisy on my part if I agreed with you.
I’m sorry.

I don't see how it would be hypocrisy on your part and I would love to hear your explanation although it will most likely end in hypocrisy also since on another post you essentailly already agreed. FC I didn't mean to come off as saying you willingly were choosing to be a hypocrite. You took a statement out of context and applied it in a different context and then built conjecture on an unfounded premise ending in an impossible conclusion. It happens all the time. You made a mistake. Happens to everyone. I pointed out pride comes into men in such circumstances and that this is used by Satan to move men. Another chance for me to show how men are manipulated by higher powers. Incidently we would have no pride if not for the knowledge of good and evil which is one reason why I said our thinking was altered.

“Paul”

Paul persecuted the Church out of ignorance not knowing who Jesus was. He acted honestly according to the knowledge that he had. He was a Pharisee but he was not like the Pharisees who acted out of self-aggrandizement. When Jesus came to him and revealed the truth to him he changed his mind and began to follow Jesus. He had the free will to change his mind. When new knowledge came forth he changed according to the new knowledge. If he had no free will, then he wouldn’t have changed.

Here's common sense: Freewill does not change minds, Truth changes minds. That's what education and knowledge does, change minds. Please note that freewill (choice) would have to come before thought process to change a mind that has already concuded. Contrary to that, the whole theory of freewill is based on mental deliberation putting thought process before freewill (Choice). Again all lies end in hypocrisy.

I don’t believe we are androids created by God, programmed to do the will of God. I don’t believe that Satan came along and reprogrammed humanity to do his will. And that they have both been busy each reprogramming humanity ever since. You people think that Satan has free reign.

Who said we are androids? Who said Satan had free reign? I will not allow you to convolute your thought process by believing this is what I think or have presented. You made this up and I challenge you to either prove it or take it back.

If we have no free will, then there is no way that we could be held responsible for anything that we think or do. And for God to hold us responsible under such conditions would not reflect the nature of a perfect God, but a God created by men.

I agree with this to a point. That point being that a man is responsible in so much as he is aware of what he 's doing. Adam and Eve certainly were not in my non condemning view. Who said God holds everyone responsible for their sin? Jesus who is God incarnate was crucified by both religious and secular authorities yet he forgave saying they didn't know what they were doing. That's a fact and murder and torture of the innocent is sin. So God's nature is perfect in Christ even because men who do not know what they are doing are not held responsible, or Jesus is a liar.

Eve knew what God said. She chose to follow Satan instead of God, thinking that he was right. What do you think Satan did? He interpreted the words of God so that they had a different meaning. And Eve bought into the interpretation. Eve was deceived by an interpretation. It’s happening all the time in Christianity. People who claim to believe in the Bible believe in their own interpretations, even against common sense. And you can think what you will which of us is following common sense.

Yes Mankind was manipulated by one smarter than they through semantics. God knows this since He gave us the bible and that is what it says. You seem to be on my side in this. I hold mankind culpable for not trusting God, but the clear definitive of such a choice was made obscure by the manner in which it was proposed. Satan never said Trust me or trust God. It was subtle and manipulative.

“Richard Dawkins Hates a God he doesn't even believe in. Hypocrisy.”

Good grief. You even misunderstand Richard Dawkins. Dawkins doesn’t hate a God he doesn’t believe in. He believes that the idea of a God is a myth created by men as a tool to reign over the ignorant and fearful. And those who claim to believe in God are believing a lie perpetuated by religion. What he hates is that people have bought into what he considers a lie. You’ve called both me and Dawkins a hypocrite. You really need to know what people are about before you start calling them hypocrites. Lest you show yourself to be the hypocrite.

Perhaps I misunderstand Mr. Dawkins. He said in his interview that he does not discount the possibility of a God just not the God of the Old Testament. In his book however he rails against God describing His nature in vitriolic fashion and so I state he hates a God he does not believe in. How am I wrong?

Dear FC, Here is common sense: We need to agree on terms or we may end up arguing when in fact we agree. To think is not freewill it is sentience as in I think therefore I am. We have freedom of action since I can wiggle my toes. But strictly pertaining to moral choice, as in do we have the freedom to submit to or deny God, we cannot say with certainty all men absolutely do if the bible is to be believed. Why? Because The New Testament is a recorded history of men who believe they are serving God, persecuting those who actually are serving God, for serving God. This is as clear as 1+1=2 to me and I have unmoving conviction that I am correct accordingly, lest I be dishonest or wantonly ignorant. Shall I prove I have a freewill to God and heaven by claiming I can believe 1+1=3?

 

[childeye]

uh, i knowingly knew the act of gay male love was in defiance of God and heard God tell me not to partake in communion till i repent. and also in church services where it wasnt brought the spirit would convict me at each and every alter call. i knew i was hardening my heart each time every so slowly. the more i did that the easier it was to sin. yes there was this as the lbgt says, inner homophobia. that is where the person who is gay hates who he is. i was going through that and also wanting to be in that relationship along with the conviction. i was telling myself that being in this was right , when deep down inside I KNEW it was wrong.

that is willful sin. it may not have reached the point of no return but it was there.that is why i say its a point of continual rebellion.

I never heard you use this term continual rebellion before. I would point out I have no such contentions with God since I am heterosexual. That is not to say I don't have my own weaknesses in the flesh, but that is what they are, weakness. So much so that we need the Holy Spirit to convict us. When I am convicted by this Spirit I am shown why it's wrong so that I may repent in all Godly sorrow. If however I am being condemned in my conscience as willfully being a sinner, that is not The Holy Spirit. His touch is gentle and He even carries you when you can't walk.

We all know sin is wrong but it is not defiance. That you have backwards, see Romans 1. I cannot fathom why you think you are willfully homosexual or bisexual. You certainly have not found the root cause of your sin since you apply it to a freewill. To elaborate, you say you had what you describe as hate for who you are. I would think you'd realize you would in fact be free in your will if you had no such sexual appetites , not because you have them. I would suggest to diminish the lie your sin is founded upon, you consider that "gay male love" is not love, it is lust and start calling it that. I'm sorry that is the best I can do. I believe there is a greater truth that would most likely defeat such desires once revealed, but I am not sure it is my place to be privy to it. Perhaps you could know it if you would seek it from God. Perhaps you would seek it if you could get past the lie that you chose to have such desires and beseech God in the name of Jesus why you have inherited such sin? If you ask for bread will He give you a stone?

 

[Eventide]

It does not make me 'special'

Of course not.. you get eternal life while others get eternal damnation.. there's nothing special about that..

Keep believing it though.. lol

 

[Former Christian]

Childeye

When I read the Illiad, there was one phrase that stuck out to me because it appeared so often, “and he diedâ€. Ruined the whole book for me. What stuck out to Dawkins when he read the Bible was the barbarism that is so often portrayed in the pages of the Old Testament. God appears to be a bloodthirsty, arrogant, self-serving God if one doesn’t understand the why of what he is doing. And the followers of Jehovah appear to be the same as their God. The observation isn’t unique to Dawkins. Mark Twain observed the same thing over a century ago.

You have to understand the emphasis that motivates Dawkins. He’s a biology teacher. The center of his life is biology. What has been the central doctrine of secular biology for almost a century? Evolutionism. And who are the ones who, not just contend, but fight tooth and nail against Evolutionism? Christians. What is the chief part of the Bible that Christians use to fight against Evolutionism? Genesis chapters 1-2. How do you feel when someone says that what you believe is a load of crap and tries to prove it in every way but how you think it should be proved? Consider that through Dawkins eyes.

Dawkins believes in the possibility that God exists, but not in the probability that God exists. To him, it is more probable that an ancient alien civilization from outer space may have seeded the earth (an old Science Fiction idea), than that a God created the earth and it denizens.

I don’t like having to defend people that I don’t agree with. I was constantly having to defend Catholic thinking from the ignorance of Protestants, until it finally occurred to me that the ignorance is intentional.


“Dear FC, Here is common sense: We need to agree on terms or we may end up arguing when in fact we agree.â€

Yeah, you got that right. I saw one example, where what is interpretation to me is semantics to you. Took me awhile to figure that one out. If we can’t speak the same language it might be better to be silent and let people think that we are wise. I have spoken my piece, and I’m pretty much burnt out on the subject of free will. Especially after Smaller referred to Genesis 3, that he thought was my interpretation of it, a fairy tale. More intentional ignorance that I don’t need to be a part of. It’s not like I’m going to convince anyone who doesn’t want to be convinced.

The problem that you have with the idea of free will and why you can’t accept it, is a lot like the problem that I have with no free will and why I can’t accept that. It really comes down to how we consider the nature of God. Calvinists emphasize the sovereignty of God. You have mentioned other attributes in addition to that. I believe there is way more to God than just sovereignty, foreknowledge and predestination. If I believed that the Bible teaches that we have no free will, then the Bible would become just another set of human writings to me. My experience is that we have free will. Even my experience relating to my conversion is that we have free will. And I’m just as free now to be converted to something else, as I was to the Biblical version of reality. And I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. Not that I believe that conspiracy theories are impossible. Satan and mankind are fully capable of creating and executing conspiracies. But not God. And the God that I believe in won’t allow such a thing on such a grand scale as what Smaller has described until it suits his purpose. And even then it won’t be a conspiracy. It will be right out there in the open for all to see. And we can decide whether to have the mark of the beast or not. Of course, there are several theories about the mark of the beast and Armageddon that one can choose from if he so desires.

Perhaps it’s true that I just wasn’t meant to be saved in the first place. That for all of my belief and desire to be saved, I still won’t be saved. It will be the same for me as if I was born a Buddhist. That would be the Calvinist perspective. And it would be fully in keeping with the perspective of Smaller, and yourself as you have described it so far. And apparently Ivdavid. No telling who else on this forum. I have already rejected Christianity as being anything more than a man-made religion. For many, that’s enough to put me in the camp of the unsaved. I haven’t much affection for Christians. For many more that’s enough to put me in the camp of the unsaved. But not many care to know why I believe what I do about Christianity or why my affection for Christians is so low. But when some do stop to find out why, I have to say that I start to have more respect for them whether they agree with me or not. Unless they start calling me names and implying how stupid or illogical my thinking is for what I believe. Then my respect returns to what it was. I’m afraid that I’m not much of an American in regards to Christians. My experience has led me to think that they are guilty until proven innocent. I may think that people are misguided, but never stupid or illogical, because I realize that most have what are good reasons in their own eyes for believing what they believe, even Smaller. And the only people that I think are prone to be hypocritical are Christians. I was once just as prone, but now I pray that I won’t be fooled again.

To others who are reading this post,

I believe that Christianity is a man-made religion for one simple reason. If it walks like mankind, talks like mankind, and acts like mankind, then what is it? ..... mankind (an adaptation of a saying in relation to UFO’s by my favorite internet Protestant Bible teacher, Billy Crone, “IF IT WALKS LIKE A DEMON, TALKS LIKE A DEMON, AND ACTS LIKE A DEMON, WHAT IS IT? … A DEMON.â€). Christianity has the life of mankind through its authoritative leaderships, and it has the denominational nature of mankind, which to me is just obvious. I don’t have much affection for Christians because I think that too many of them are arrogant people with delusions of grandeur. And that is a shame because it means that they’re centered more in themselves than in the God they proclaim. I have known very few Christians who had enough humility to make me think otherwise. And even then I only changed my opinion about them personally. But I do practice agape love (1 Cor 13:4-8) toward those who are in Christ, just as Jesus told us to do when he said to agape love one another. And I practice the same thing toward those who aren’t in Christ because Jesus said, “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.†(Mat 5:44-48 KJV) Consider also the story of the Samaritan in Luke 10. I don’t have to have any affection toward anyone to practice agape love toward them. But I do practice agape love because Jesus wishes it and he is my Lord, in spite of what anyone might think. Yet, even so, I don’t have to practice agape love toward anyone. I can choose not to. But I choose to do so because I have affection toward Jesus who cared enough to be my savior. And I have a tendency to imitate those whom I have affection toward.

To Eventide,

Yeah, that does make me feel kinda special, as well it should anyone who realizes what God has done on our behalf. Jesus didn’t have to care about the human race to suffer as he did. God could have started over. But instead, through his infinite compassion, God chose to save all who would choose to believe the Gospel, and be saved by virtue of being in Christ. And if I’m going to emphasize anything about God, that is what I would emphasize, God’s infinite compassion on all so he could save as many as possible. And this is just a personal opinion, but I believe there are a lot more in Christ than most Christians think there are. And what I think of Christians doesn’t alter that opinion. Yet I can understand why Protestants think in such a limited way toward one another; what with Calvinism on the one hand and denominationalism on the other, to contend with. One thing that most Christians fail to realize is that Calvinism is an extreme form of Protestantism. It may seem remarkable that half of Protestantism is under the influence of Calvinism. But seeing as Protestantism is the ultimate in denominational expression, not all that surprising. Most think that the Anabaptists are the extreme form and Calvinism is mainstream, along with Lutheranism. And considering the numbers that believe in Calvinism, it’s not surprising that they would think that.

FC

 

[childeye]

Childeye

When I read the Illiad, there was one phrase that stuck out to me because it appeared so often, “and he died”. Ruined the whole book for me. What stuck out to Dawkins when he read the Bible was the barbarism that is so often portrayed in the pages of the Old Testament. God appears to be a bloodthirsty, arrogant, self-serving God if one doesn’t understand the why of what he is doing. And the followers of Jehovah appear to be the same as their God. The observation isn’t unique to Dawkins. Mark Twain observed the same thing over a century ago.

You have to understand the emphasis that motivates Dawkins. He’s a biology teacher. The center of his life is biology. What has been the central doctrine of secular biology for almost a century? Evolutionism. And who are the ones who, not just contend, but fight tooth and nail against Evolutionism? Christians. What is the chief part of the Bible that Christians use to fight against Evolutionism? Genesis chapters 1-2. How do you feel when someone says that what you believe is a load of crap and tries to prove it in every way but how you think it should be proved? Consider that through Dawkins eyes.

Dawkins believes in the possibility that God exists, but not in the probability that God exists. To him, it is more probable that an ancient alien civilization from outer space may have seeded the earth (an old Science Fiction idea), than that a God created the earth and it denizens.

I don’t like having to defend people that I don’t agree with. I was constantly having to defend Catholic thinking from the ignorance of Protestants, until it finally occurred to me that the ignorance is intentional.


“Dear FC, Here is common sense: We need to agree on terms or we may end up arguing when in fact we agree.”

Yeah, you got that right. I saw one example, where what is interpretation to me is semantics to you. Took me awhile to figure that one out. If we can’t speak the same language it might be better to be silent and let people think that we are wise. I have spoken my piece, and I’m pretty much burnt out on the subject of free will. Especially after Smaller referred to Genesis 3, that he thought was my interpretation of it, a fairy tale. More intentional ignorance that I don’t need to be a part of. It’s not like I’m going to convince anyone who doesn’t want to be convinced.

The problem that you have with the idea of free will and why you can’t accept it, is a lot like the problem that I have with no free will and why I can’t accept that. It really comes down to how we consider the nature of God. Calvinists emphasize the sovereignty of God. You have mentioned other attributes in addition to that. I believe there is way more to God than just sovereignty, foreknowledge and predestination. If I believed that the Bible teaches that we have no free will, then the Bible would become just another set of human writings to me. My experience is that we have free will. Even my experience relating to my conversion is that we have free will. And I’m just as free now to be converted to something else, as I was to the Biblical version of reality. And I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. Not that I believe that conspiracy theories are impossible. Satan and mankind are fully capable of creating and executing conspiracies. But not God. And the God that I believe in won’t allow such a thing on such a grand scale as what Smaller has described until it suits his purpose. And even then it won’t be a conspiracy. It will be right out there in the open for all to see. And we can decide whether to have the mark of the beast or not. Of course, there are several theories about the mark of the beast and Armageddon that one can choose from if he so desires.

Perhaps it’s true that I just wasn’t meant to be saved in the first place. That for all of my belief and desire to be saved, I still won’t be saved. It will be the same for me as if I was born a Buddhist. That would be the Calvinist perspective. And it would be fully in keeping with the perspective of Smaller, and yourself as you have described it so far. And apparently Ivdavid. No telling who else on this forum. I have already rejected Christianity as being anything more than a man-made religion. For many, that’s enough to put me in the camp of the unsaved. I haven’t much affection for Christians. For many more that’s enough to put me in the camp of the unsaved. But not many care to know why I believe what I do about Christianity or why my affection for Christians is so low. But when some do stop to find out why, I have to say that I start to have more respect for them whether they agree with me or not. Unless they start calling me names and implying how stupid or illogical my thinking is for what I believe. Then my respect returns to what it was. I’m afraid that I’m not much of an American in regards to Christians. My experience has led me to think that they are guilty until proven innocent. I may think that people are misguided, but never stupid or illogical, because I realize that most have what are good reasons in their own eyes for believing what they believe, even Smaller. And the only people that I think are prone to be hypocritical are Christians. I was once just as prone, but now I pray that I won’t be fooled again.

To others who are reading this post,

I believe that Christianity is a man-made religion for one simple reason. If it walks like mankind, talks like mankind, and acts like mankind, then what is it? ..... mankind (an adaptation of a saying in relation to UFO’s by my favorite internet Protestant Bible teacher, Billy Crone, “IF IT WALKS LIKE A DEMON, TALKS LIKE A DEMON, AND ACTS LIKE A DEMON, WHAT IS IT? … A DEMON.”). Christianity has the life of mankind through its authoritative leaderships, and it has the denominational nature of mankind, which to me is just obvious. I don’t have much affection for Christians because I think that too many of them are arrogant people with delusions of grandeur. And that is a shame because it means that they’re centered more in themselves than in the God they proclaim. I have known very few Christians who had enough humility to make me think otherwise. And even then I only changed my opinion about them personally. But I do practice agape love (1 Cor 13:4-8) toward those who are in Christ, just as Jesus told us to do when he said to agape love one another. And I practice the same thing toward those who aren’t in Christ because Jesus said, “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Mat 5:44-48 KJV) Consider also the story of the Samaritan in Luke 10. I don’t have to have any affection toward anyone to practice agape love toward them. But I do practice agape love because Jesus wishes it and he is my Lord, in spite of what anyone might think. Yet, even so, I don’t have to practice agape love toward anyone. I can choose not to. But I choose to do so because I have affection toward Jesus who cared enough to be my savior. And I have a tendency to imitate those whom I have affection toward.

To Eventide,

Yeah, that does make me feel kinda special, as well it should anyone who realizes what God has done on our behalf. Jesus didn’t have to care about the human race to suffer as he did. God could have started over. But instead, through his infinite compassion, God chose to save all who would choose to believe the Gospel, and be saved by virtue of being in Christ. And if I’m going to emphasize anything about God, that is what I would emphasize, God’s infinite compassion on all so he could save as many as possible. And this is just a personal opinion, but I believe there are a lot more in Christ than most Christians think there are. And what I think of Christians doesn’t alter that opinion. Yet I can understand why Protestants think in such a limited way toward one another; what with Calvinism on the one hand and denominationalism on the other, to contend with. One thing that most Christians fail to realize is that Calvinism is an extreme form of Protestantism. It may seem remarkable that half of Protestantism is under the influence of Calvinism. But seeing as Protestantism is the ultimate in denominational expression, not all that surprising. Most think that the Anabaptists are the extreme form and Calvinism is mainstream, along with Lutheranism. And considering the numbers that believe in Calvinism, it’s not surprising that they would think that.

FC

Dear FC, Don't leave. You are mistaken to think you are not meant to be saved. No one can say who will be saved until the end. Salvation is a hope that you should always have. Christianity is not a man made religion but exactly the opposite. What you see and dislike is the work of Satan trying to make it look that way and cause people to feel about it exactly as you are feeling. Love is eternal is all Christianity is saying. It can't die no matter what you do to it. I wish at least we could agree on that. That is why I don't believe in freewill which says we choose love. I don't reckon the existence of God in man is left to human deliberation of the mind. The heart is where Love resides and men don't choose this.

I can see you're down and I want to help. Please let me in.

 

[Former Christian]

Childeye

This post is a good example of what you said about us not understanding each other. But I will try to respond according to how I understand you, because you appear to be concerned.


“I can see you're down and I want to help. Please let me in.â€

By this I assume you’re referring to feelings. If so, I appreciate the thought. But I’m not down in that sense.


“You are mistaken to think you are not meant to be saved.â€

I didn’t mean that I believe that concerning myself. Rather, it is what a Calvinist would believe due to his idea that only those specially chosen by God are saved. It is the logical conclusion of their five points. I believe that everyone is meant to be saved, according to God’s desire, “who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.†(1 Tim 2:4 NIV). And God provided the means for that to happen in Christ. One of the works of God (Eph 2:10) is that we who are in Christ let everyone know of God’s provision. Paul is speaking about all who are in Christ, not just himself, when he says, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.†(2 Cor 5:17-21 NIV) Unfortunately, it is Christianity that is seen by the world, rather than the true community expression of the Body of Christ. And that may indeed be a part of the plan of Satan. To let people think that Christianity represents God on earth, in the same way that Israel did in the Old Testament era. But Satan’s plan is thwarted by every person who is in Christ who is also walking by the Spirit of God and declaring that God has reconciled mankind in his Son.


“No one can say who will be saved until the end.â€

Unlike the Wesleyans and the Catholic/Orthodox denominations, I believe that we can have the assurance of Salvation while still alive. Given your Calvinistic leanings, I’m surprised that you believe otherwise. My understanding is based on the fact that it would be pointless to believe in a Salvation that we couldn’t be sure of; a salvation that we can only hope is the way to God. Ultimately, believing that we can’t be sure of our salvation is anthropocentric, centering in our own ability to save ourselves through our own faith. Since I am Christocentric, I believe that our assurance is based on the person and work of Christ, not on ourselves. Thus I agree with the Calvinists on this point, though for different reasons. I believe that in Christ we are eternally secure. It is apparently the only one of the five Calvinist points that I agree with.


“Christianity is not a man made religion but exactly the opposite. What you see and dislike is the work of Satan trying to make it look that way and cause people to feel about it exactly as you are feeling.â€

Since I neither attribute free reign nor every negative thing that happens on the planet to Satan, I respectfully disagree. If it’s an animal that quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. So also is Christianity an expression of its own nature, which to me is obviously human. The fact that there are those who are truly in Christ among those who are not doesn’t change anything. Has nothing to do with how I feel about it. Because how I feel about it is sadness that those who are in Christ have allowed themselves to be deceived into congregating with those who are not, and not only think that they are congregating with their own, but think that they doing the will and work of God.

“Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.††(2 Cor 6:14-18 ESV) In Christianity, those who are in Christ are yoked together with unbelievers. Unity in Christianity is doctrinal, and the common practice of closed communion is based on doctrinal unity. Not on unity in Christ nor on unity in the Holy Spirit. And Paul clearly points out the righteousness of those who are in Christ that is in contrast with the lawlessness of the unbeliever. Our righteousness apart from Christ is as filthy rags to God, no matter how righteous we may be or how righteous we try to be. Our righteous apart from Christ in contrast to the righteous of God is as lawlessness.

Ironically, if I agreed with you on this point, that the nature of Christianity isn’t human, I would be a Roman Catholic. Because it is obvious to me that Roman Catholicism is the ultimate expression of Christianity, not Protestantism nor Eastern Orthodoxy. But because I see the human nature of Christianity, and that Christianity is not the true expression of the Body of Christ, I also see that Roman Catholicism is not a true expression of the Body of Christ.


“Love is eternal is all Christianity is saying. It can't die no matter what you do to it. I wish at least we could agree on that.â€

We do agree on that. But for different reasons. I believe that agape love (which is what I assume you are referring to) is eternal because it is an attribute of the nature of God. Anyone can practice agape love if they have a mind to. But it will be an imperfect practice apart from Christ, because mankind is a limited created being and is imperfect due to the fall. In order to agape love perfectly, one must be in the living Christ being conformed to the image of Christ, and one must be walking by the Holy Spirit through which we experience agape love as fruit of the living Holy Spirit, an experience of the nature of the living God.


“That is why I don't believe in freewill which says we choose love. I don't reckon the existence of God in man is left to human deliberation of the mind.â€

I agree with the second sentence, but again for different reasons. Mankind is limited by its own nature and the affects of the fall. Hence God must reveal himself to mankind. Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants commonly think that such revelation is the purpose of the Bible. And thus they believe that only by quoting Bible verses to the unsaved will they ever understand the Gospel and be saved. They are constantly surprised when it doesn’t work and attribute the failing to the person himself or to Satan. They can’t see that the failing may actually be with the one quoting the Bible, who isn’t expressing the gospel or the life of Christ within whom he wishes to reveal. One of the things that I don’t agree with Roman Catholicism is that it is a religion that expresses certain things about Christ, but not Christ himself. It expresses its own denominational nature through its belief in transubstantiation and its practice of closed communion. Of course, no true Roman Catholic could agree with that.


“The heart is where Love resides and men don't choose this.â€

There is a relationship between the heart and agape love. We are encouraged by Peter, “Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently†(1 Pet 1:22 KJV, note that love of the brethren is not referring to agape love, but brotherly affection; the second reference is to agape love). But agape is not centered in the heart. Rather it is centered in our whole being “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment†(Mark 12:30 KJV). Expressing perfect agape love is as much a choice as is being transformed through the renewing of our minds and walking by the Holy Spirit. Paul didn’t say we will be transformed or we will walk. He encouraged us to be transformed and to walk. And that can only mean that the choice is ours. Those who choose to not be transformed and not to walk only hurt themselves because they are missing out on the practical experience of being in Christ. What is true, and may be what you are trying to emphasize, is that, “We love him, because he first loved us.†(1 John 4:19 KJV) But John said earlier, “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved uswe ought also to love one another.†(1 John 4:10-11 KJV) And that statement “we ought also to love one another†is definitely a choice on our part.

FC

 

[childeye]

Childeye

This post is a good example of what you said about us not understanding each other. But I will try to respond according to how I understand you, because you appear to be concerned.


“I can see you're down and I want to help. Please let me in.â€

By this I assume you’re referring to feelings. If so, I appreciate the thought. But I’m not down in that sense.


“You are mistaken to think you are not meant to be saved.â€

I didn’t mean that I believe that concerning myself. Rather, it is what a Calvinist would believe due to his idea that only those specially chosen by God are saved. It is the logical conclusion of their five points. I believe that everyone is meant to be saved, according to God’s desire, “who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.†(1 Tim 2:4 NIV). And God provided the means for that to happen in Christ. One of the works of God (Eph 2:10) is that we who are in Christ let everyone know of God’s provision. Paul is speaking about all who are in Christ, not just himself, when he says, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.†(2 Cor 5:17-21 NIV) Unfortunately, it is Christianity that is seen by the world, rather than the true community expression of the Body of Christ. And that may indeed be a part of the plan of Satan. To let people think that Christianity represents God on earth, in the same way that Israel did in the Old Testament era. But Satan’s plan is thwarted by every person who is in Christ who is also walking by the Spirit of God and declaring that God has reconciled mankind in his Son.




“Christianity is not a man made religion but exactly the opposite. What you see and dislike is the work of Satan trying to make it look that way and cause people to feel about it exactly as you are feeling.â€

Since I neither attribute free reign nor every negative thing that happens on the planet to Satan, I respectfully disagree. If it’s an animal that quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. So also is Christianity an expression of its own nature, which to me is obviously human. The fact that there are those who are truly in Christ among those who are not doesn’t change anything. Has nothing to do with how I feel about it. Because how I feel about it is sadness that those who are in Christ have allowed themselves to be deceived into congregating with those who are not, and not only think that they are congregating with their own, but think that they doing the will and work of God.

“Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.††(2 Cor 6:14-18 ESV) In Christianity, those who are in Christ are yoked together with unbelievers. Unity in Christianity is doctrinal, and the common practice of closed communion is based on doctrinal unity. Not on unity in Christ nor on unity in the Holy Spirit. And Paul clearly points out the righteousness of those who are in Christ that is in contrast with the lawlessness of the unbeliever. Our righteousness apart from Christ is as filthy rags to God, no matter how righteous we may be or how righteous we try to be. Our righteous apart from Christ in contrast to the righteous of God is as lawlessness.

Ironically, if I agreed with you on this point, that the nature of Christianity isn’t human, I would be a Roman Catholic. Because it is obvious to me that Roman Catholicism is the ultimate expression of Christianity, not Protestantism nor Eastern Orthodoxy. But because I see the human nature of Christianity, and that Christianity is not the true expression of the Body of Christ, I also see that Roman Catholicism is not a true expression of the Body of Christ.


“Love is eternal is all Christianity is saying. It can't die no matter what you do to it. I wish at least we could agree on that.â€

We do agree on that. But for different reasons. I believe that agape love (which is what I assume you are referring to) is eternal because it is an attribute of the nature of God. Anyone can practice agape love if they have a mind to. But it will be an imperfect practice apart from Christ, because mankind is a limited created being and is imperfect due to the fall. In order to agape love perfectly, one must be in the living Christ being conformed to the image of Christ, and one must be walking by the Holy Spirit through which we experience agape love as fruit of the living Holy Spirit, an experience of the nature of the living God.


“That is why I don't believe in freewill which says we choose love. I don't reckon the existence of God in man is left to human deliberation of the mind.â€

I agree with the second sentence, but again for different reasons. Mankind is limited by its own nature and the affects of the fall. Hence God must reveal himself to mankind. Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants commonly think that such revelation is the purpose of the Bible. And thus they believe that only by quoting Bible verses to the unsaved will they ever understand the Gospel and be saved. They are constantly surprised when it doesn’t work and attribute the failing to the person himself or to Satan. They can’t see that the failing may actually be with the one quoting the Bible, who isn’t expressing the gospel or the life of Christ within whom he wishes to reveal. One of the things that I don’t agree with Roman Catholicism is that it is a religion that expresses certain things about Christ, but not Christ himself. It expresses its own denominational nature through its belief in transubstantiation and its practice of closed communion. Of course, no true Roman Catholic could agree with that.


“The heart is where Love resides and men don't choose this.â€

There is a relationship between the heart and agape love. We are encouraged by Peter, “Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently†(1 Pet 1:22 KJV, note that love of the brethren is not referring to agape love, but brotherly affection; the second reference is to agape love). But agape is not centered in the heart. Rather it is centered in our whole being “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment†(Mark 12:30 KJV). Expressing perfect agape love is as much a choice as is being transformed through the renewing of our minds and walking by the Holy Spirit. Paul didn’t say we will be transformed or we will walk. He encouraged us to be transformed and to walk. And that can only mean that the choice is ours. Those who choose to not be transformed and not to walk only hurt themselves because they are missing out on the practical experience of being in Christ. What is true, and may be what you are trying to emphasize, is that, “We love him, because he first loved us.†(1 John 4:19 KJV) But John said earlier, “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.†(1 John 4:10-11 KJV) And that statement “we ought also to love one another†is definitely a choice on our part.

FC

I think this is the best post you've written on these boards. You speak as if you understand my positions for the most part and I am glad for that. I don't know what you mean by Calvinistic leanings, but the essentails that Love can't die is really all I have built everything I believe on including my definition of freewill. You are more Christian than you know would be my assessment. You were concerned that I was concerned though you might get angry with me if I tell you, this was God in you and you did not by volition deliberate in your mind whether you should be concerned before you were concerned. You felt me, you became me even as I had become you. This was always and ever my point on this thread. There is a God and He is Love. I feel better and I feel like you let me in with this post. You're wrong about freewill though. A man can run from God but he can't run from God. Semantics, go figure. Please note I believe in freewill to a point, but am opposed to use it as a means of blame those who are blind.

One last thing. I was taught by the Holy Spirit and the Truth set me free. Free from what I thought was knowledge that proved to be ignorance. Incidently you can't believe Christianity is a man made religion and at the same time claim the Christ is sent by God. I suspect you equate christianity as man made with those who hijack the message and instituitionalize it. In Truth this would not then be Christianity so you are essentailly buying into the hijacking by calling it as such, respectfully. Love Ya FC. Hope to see you around the forum.

 

[ivdavid]

Former Christian,

There are only two alternatives: understanding the Bible through our own thinking by interpretration or understanding it through supernatural means.

Agreed. See, I share your beliefs on the futility of human interpretations as you have defined 'interpretation'. Where I seem to struggle is in making sense of how you apply it. Let me explain myself over the next few posts.


You said - "We, as those who are in Christ, if we are being taught by Jesus Christ, share many convictions that we believe are certain."

Yes, it stands to plain reason that being taught by the same Teacher, we will share the same convictions.


You followed the above with - " But due to the nature of the denominations, and its influence upon those who are in Christ, there are many convictions that we don’t share because their source isn’t Jesus Christ."

I think what you mean here is that the differences in convictions arise only because of personal human interpretation, the only other possibility being that we be united in Christ over our convictions/beliefs. Have I inferred correctly?

See, I know that the authoritative interpretations of Christian denominations could lead to the present beliefs of people today - but the cause is not just limited to them, right? There could very well be the possibility of a person making up his own interpretation, apart from denominations and apart from Christ, right? Do you concede this possibility? I ask this because I see you brushing people into either being taught by Christ or taught by denominations - from what you've written, I'm assuming that you would also hold that people could be taught by themselves - their own interpretations. That's how authoritative interpretations of denominations began in the first place, right? Are we on the same page so far on this?



FC - "Perhaps it’s true that I just wasn’t meant to be saved in the first place. That for all of my belief and desire to be saved, I still won’t be saved. It will be the same for me as if I was born a Buddhist. That would be the Calvinist perspective. And it would be fully in keeping with the perspective of......apparently ivdavid."

Since I have been mentioned, let me clarify - I don't think one is saved because of his desire to be saved but I believe that if anyone will have faith in Christ, they will surely be saved. And by this, I do not mean that they are saved because they believe in Christ - rather because it is Christ they believe in. And I think this is what the calvinistic belief also states. Anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord, will be saved. Christ will not turn away anyone who comes to Him.

But who chooses to come to Him in faith? Ones who make up their own minds or ones who are enabled by God - that's where the beliefs differ. As for me, my own experiences are supported by John 6:64-65. I'd testify that God enables people to make up their own minds to come to Christ in faith.


FC - "Ultimately, believing that we can’t be sure of our salvation is anthropocentric, centering in our own ability to save ourselves through our own faith. Since I am Christocentric, I believe that our assurance is based on the person and work of Christ, not on ourselves."

The calvinistic 5 points arise out of a similar premise - that our own ability to save ourselves is absent. I think you hold it to be insufficient - they hold it to be completely absent. They prefer 'all glory be to God alone' to 'most glory be to God alone'. As you said, it is borne out of the nature of God that one perceives - their unity being wrought in the revelations by Jesus Christ alone.

Continued....

 

[ivdavid]

Former Christian,

FC - "My experience is that we have free will. Even my experience relating to my conversion is that we have free will."

I respect your beliefs and the basis you've provided for them. What I can't understand is what you were referring to by these statements -
FC - " They believe in things that have no relationship to what is obviously and intuitively true and real....Especially Christians who seem to be able to believe in all kinds of nonsense, and then claim that the Bible says it, when the Bible says no such thing."

This seems so unlike you - and hence I'm seeking clarification on how you meant it. "Obviously and intuitively true" according to you, right? Is that enough grounds to call everything else as nonsense? And you seem to be debating a belief on the basis of the Bible when you believe that it has no such authority - what you have read as conveying one thing, another has read as conveying another thing. Both of you having interpreted it, is a possibility - how could you know? Do you base it on your current experiential reality - your experiences could be added to, the next day, leading to other conclusions, right? I don't know - you sounded just the way you didn't want people to sound - and I'm not even saying that you intended it that way - just that it came across that way.

I think it refers to your thoughts on Luther's belief on justification by faith alone and how he arrived at it. Would it make you change your opinion if somebody arrived at it without wanting to excuse their flesh? I mean, do you rubbish a belief based on one person - as if none other could arrive at such a belief? I'm only asking how you evaluate truth - seeing that you do do so.

So if I told you that my experience is that we don't have free will and that my experience relating to my conversion too affirms this - then would you call my experiences nonsensical? There could be the possibility that either of us have interpreted our experiences, right? How does one reliably prove to oneself that what he believes in is not his interpretation? This is your application part that I haven't understood properly.

Continued....

 

[ivdavid]

Former Christian,

Regarding the soul, which I understand as consciousness - I do need to read up on it. But what you've put forth seems to convey that you refer to it for all amoral works. If that's the case, we are not in disagreement because I was only referring to works that involved morality. In the context of such works pertaining to morality, my belief is that we either work out the desires of the flesh or the desires of the Spirit - and this working out happens out of our soul. Since the vocabulary on this topic is not universally common, we might find ourselves meaning the same thing by different words or the other way around.

Since I had never loved God in any of my acts/works before regeneration, I have always transgressed the law in every single act of mine - thereby having committed sin all along.

I think that all who are in Christ, and are honest with themselves have this experience.

I thought you agreed with me here when you said believers in Christ share this experience. But I find you to have qualified it thus -
FC - "When faced with the righteousness of God, are own righteousness is as filthy rags."
Does the context lead you to add a relative standard? If so, so be it - I am not trying to convince you otherwise - just asking how you arrived at this.

Does Romans 3:9-12 also lend itself to such relativistic 'interpretation'? This is where I fail to understand what you mean by interpretation - you've been patient thus far - dissect this for me and explain to me whether this is an interpretation or not and how. My idea of what interpretation is, is this - whenever a person tries to conclude upon a particular understanding of a statement - a statement which gives rise to more than one understanding, he is interpreting. Now, when Christ gives you the correct conclusion out of the many possible, that is not interpreting but rather being taught by Christ. Have you understood what I mean by 'interpretation'?

FC - "But how does that imply that we have no righteousness whatsoever. Do you really think that those who aren’t in Christ are not able to perform any righteous act at all?"
Because our righteousness is to come by keeping the law, which none of us are able to keep - we lack our own righteousness. (Do we mean the same thing by righteousness here?)
Do I think that unbelievers can perform righteous acts? Eg: Can an unbeliever help a stranger in need? Yes - I believe he can. The focus is not on the doer but on the action w.r.t. the receiver alone. Here I refer to the righteous act as pertaining to the person in need.
Do I think that unbelievers can perform righteous acts? No - they cannot. Here, the focus is on the doer. Let me explain -

Consider this as the Law for convenience in discussion -
1. Love your God with all your heart, mind and soul.
2. Love your neighbour as yourself.
3. Give alms to the poor.
4. Do not tell others of your charitable acts.

Consider an unbeliever giving alms to a poor stranger on the street.
Case 1: If the unbeliever has given alms to the poor just to get rid of him, he has broken commandments 1 and 2.
Case 2: If the unbeliever has given alms to the poor out of a sense of displayed magnanimity(which usually is camouflaged as looking down in pity), he has broken commandments 1,2 and 4 - he has served his own desires of receiving praise of other men.
Case 3: If the unbeliever has given alms to the poor out of a sense of duty and moral uprightness alone, he has broken commandments 1 and 2 - he has served his own desire of being 'good' and self-righteous in upholding the virtue of being charitable while not focusing on the poor man - he was only a means to this end.
Case 4: If the unbeliever has given alms to the poor out of a sense of selfless concern for the well-being of that poor man, he has broken commandment 1.

I think it is because we cannot ascertain what is in people's hearts like this, we are commanded not to judge. Anyway, the unbeliever can be said to have done a righteous act when he has kept all the commandments simultaneously during that act. If he has broken even a single commandment, though keeping everything else, he is still guilty of transgressing the law which is sin. How then can this be considered a righteous act by the unbeliever? And by this standard, when only can the unbeliever perform a righteous act?
Isn't that the purpose of the law - to show the nature of rebellion inside each one of us which is the enemy of God continuously - it is this nature that we are freed from during our redemption and regeneration.


FC - "What of Abraham who didn’t know the Law given to Moses, was not in Christ, didn’t have the Spirit in the sense that we do."
Are you absolutely sure that Abraham didn't have the Spirit or are you concluding on an argument from silence? I believe the OT saints all looked unto Christ in faith even though they may not have seen the Messiah in the flesh.

FC - "What of those who are not in Christ and yet are capable of keeping the laws of their own man-made nation?"
I think your reference to 'keeping the laws' does not include their intents - which are also judged upon for righteousness by God. When they do not love God for who He is, and for that reason alone, can any work be deemed righteous?

FC - "Continually? Well, you fooled me. I had no idea that you agreed with Childeye and Smaller. I can see that I need to be more observant."
I sense an unwarranted bias here - I'd be glad to be wrong on this. I have never misrepresented myself - nor have I intended to. I agree and disagree with others here just as I agree and disagree with you - how does that even matter concerning our present discussion? What have I fooled you about?

 

[Former Christian]

Childeye

“Please note I believe in freewill to a point, but am opposed to use it as a means of blame those who are blind.â€

I don’t understand what you mean by using the idea of free will as a means to blame the blind. I wouldn’t bother to bring it up, except this is the first time I’ve seen you say that you “believe in freewill to a pointâ€.


“you can't believe Christianity is a man made religion and at the same time claim the Christ is sent by Godâ€

Why do you say that?

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Ivdavid

“Interpretationâ€

The practice of Biblical interpretation has only produced differences of opinion. Nothing to base one’s certainty on. Jesus is the living teacher to those who are in Christ, and to them alone. Why can’t we base our certainty on the certainty of Christ?

Christianity is composed of those who are in Christ and those who are not. And foundational to its denominations are its authority structures. No distinction is made as to whether those who hold authoritative positions are in Christ or not. The only thing necessary is whether a person claims to believe the distinctive doctrines of the denomination, distinctions based on interpretations. Isn’t it true that the distinctive doctrines of a denomination are nothing more than opinions to everyone but themselves?

The Bible is not an authority in itself as claimed by the Protestants. The Bible is specially given by God to be a tool of communication between Christ the teacher and those who are in Christ through the Holy Spirit. That is, I think, the hardest thing for a Protestant to see because the idea of Sola Scriptura emphasizes the sufficiency of the Bible itself.

Jesus is seated on the right hand of the Father. There is no indication that Jesus can be in two places at the same time, in spite of his glorified state. Being human as well as Divine apparently does have its limitations. Thus he sends the Holy Spirit to be his liaison between those who are in Christ and himself. The Christ, when on the earth, spoke only those things given to him by his Father. So also the Spirit only speaks what Christ has given him. So to hear what the Spirit is saying is to hear what Jesus is saying.

The connection between the ones who are in Christ and the Holy Spirit is by the human spirit. The Holy Spirit resides in the one who is in Christ through the human spirit. Jesus resides in the one who is in Christ through that same connection, regardless of whether or not such a one is walking by the Spirit. But in order for one who is in Christ to be taught by Christ, such a one has to be walking by the Spirit. Because if such a one is walking by the flesh, the tendency is to practice interpretation, the source of division and contentions, which nullifies the teaching of Christ to that person.


“Unityâ€

The unity of the ones who are in Christ is through their connection to Christ through the Holy Spirit. Paul encourages us to keep the unity of the Spirit. Paul also encourages us to say the same thing because it is the only unity that the world can see. But Paul also points out that such unity is impossible so long as we are following men rather than Christ through the Spirit.

Today the situation has gone way beyond what Paul was talking about in the first century. Today the divisions aren’t merely internal in a local community expression. Today the divisions are in distinctions that are denominations that are totally distinct communities in themselves. Can a denomination have local churches that are anything other than reflections of its own nature, that are imitations of the true local community expression? Doesn’t the denominational nature of Christianity plainly show itself through the distinctions of the many denominations?

And Protestantism, rather than unifying themselves in Christ through the Holy Spirit, have only succeeded in NOT saying the same thing, in being the most denominational of all. Simply because they perpetuated the practice of Biblical interpretation that they inherited from the Western Church. And this is what the world sees. Not many community expressions unified, but one communal expression (Christianity) divided. Not many community expressions unified by the teaching of Christ through the Holy Spirit, but one communal expression divided by many teachings of men. How much plainer must it be that the prayer of Jesus in John 17:20-23 is not, indeed can not, be answered in regard to Christianity?


“Calvinismâ€

Calvinism believes in an emphasis (sovereignty of God) and in a limitation (salvation is only for a special elect). Where the teaching of Christ says that God desires all men to be saved, Calvinism interprets that to say all ELECT men. Where the teaching of Christ says that Jesus Christ the righteous is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, Calvinism interprets that to say the whole ELECT world. Where the teaching of Christ says that God is not a respecter of persons, Calvinism says that God chooses some to be saved and the rest to be condemned, thus showing that God is indeed a respecter of persons. Where the teaching of Christ says we can and are to choose whom we will serve, God or Satan, Calvinism says we have no choice in the matter because it is God who chooses. Wouldn’t you say that Calvinism is a rather extreme form of Protestantism, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Mormons, and the Churches of Christ?


“Righteousness and the Law of Godâ€

The Law is a picture in human words of the righteousness of God. The Law reveals the nature of sin, which is merely a missing of the mark in relation to the righteous of God. Why would that imply that a person can’t be righteous at all? Why wouldn’t it simply show that a person can’t be righteous perfectly? Did Jesus say to the man who wanted to know what to do in order to gain eternal life, “nothing� Did Jesus say to him when he claimed that he kept the law from his youth up, “you are lying†or “you have deceived yourself� Didn’t Jesus just reveal to him what he needed to do to make his righteousness perfect or complete? Paul bluntly states that regarding the Law he was blameless. Are we going to say that Paul was lying or was confused or was deceived? Was Paul exaggerating? Was Paul arrogant? If any one of these things is true, then why believe any of the rest of what he said in that letter, or anything he said at all for that matter?


“Justification by faith aloneâ€

I gave reasons why I don’t believe in Luther’s doctrine that had nothing to do with the experiential reasons why Luther believed it. The letter of James, for one. The letter that Luther didn’t care for because it so obviously contradicts his doctrine.


“Romans 3:9-12 â€

Do you see something relative or interpretive in the fact that God considered all of mankind in Adam to be condemned so that he could offer salvation to all through Jesus Christ (Rom 3:1-31, 5:1-21)?


“Soulâ€

Oxford Dictionary: “the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortalâ€, “a person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identityâ€, “emotional or intellectual energy or intensity, especially as revealed in a work of art or an artistic performanceâ€, “a person regarded as the embodiment of a specified qualityâ€, “an individual personâ€, “a person regarded with affection or pityâ€.

Your right. The word soul has a lot of different meanings in English. Best to stick with how the word is used in the Bible. There are some obvious basic verses to consider. Like Genesis 2:7 that shows the experiential meaning of the word. And Hebrews 4:12 that shows that the human spirit and the human soul are different. And Mark 12:30 that shows that our heart, our soul, our mind, and our strength are all different. They are parts of the total human person, but different parts.

More to follow

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Ivdavid

“But who chooses to come to Him in faith? Ones who make up their own minds or ones who are enabled by God - that's where the beliefs differ. As for me, my own experiences are supported by John 6:64-65. I'd testify that God enables people to make up their own minds to come to Christ in faith.â€

You already answered your question to your own satisfaction. For me to add anything would be futile.


“Are you absolutely sure that Abraham didn't have the Spirit or are you concluding on an argument from silence? I believe the OT saints all looked unto Christ in faith even though they may not have seen the Messiah in the flesh.â€

If he had the Spirit, then Jesus hasn’t revealed it to me. But he may have been one of the Prophets and did have the Holy Spirit. As far as the OT saints, Peter says that, the Prophets (not everyone) weren’t sure of what was being prophesied through the Spirit or who the prophesy was for (1 Pet 1:10-12). The OT saints only knew of a Messiah or Christ to come. They may have understood something of what he would be like and where he would be from. But they understood nothing about what he would do in relation to we who are in Christ because, as Paul said, it was hidden.

Why do you underestimate an argument simply because it is from silence? The Bible says nothing about smoking. So can we say nothing about it because Scripture is silent on the subject? Should we resort to the practice of interpretation so that we can come up with “principles� Isn’t it true that “principles†arrived at in that way differ? The only guide we have is in reference to the one drug that the Bible does speak about, alcohol. And it only says moderation. So can we smoke so long as it’s done with moderation? Good an excuse as any to disregard the common sense advice of our doctor, don’t you think?


“FC - " They believe in things that have no relationship to what is obviously and intuitively true and real....Especially Christians who seem to be able to believe in all kinds of nonsense, and then claim that the Bible says it, when the Bible says no such thing." â€

Means precisely what is said. I believe in common sense. Common sense refers to things obviously and intuitively true and real to most everyone who can see things apart from bias. That’s not to say that we don’t all have some personal bias. But bias is the name of the game today, so common sense isn’t as common as it used to be. Nevertheless, it is common sense to believe that from our perspective the sun rises every morning in the east, regardless of whether someone’s personal bias may lead him to believe that the sun rises in the west. As far as the reference to Christians, I probably should have replaced nonsense with things. That would have made what I said seem less judgmental while still descibing my own negative feeling about the denominational nature of Christianity, which is what I was referring to.



“FC - "Continually? Well, you fooled me. I had no idea that you agreed with Childeye and Smaller. I can see that I need to be more observant."
I sense an unwarranted bias here - I'd be glad to be wrong on this. I have never misrepresented myself - nor have I intended to. I agree and disagree with others here just as I agree and disagree with you - how does that even matter concerning our present discussion? What have I fooled you about?â€

Bias? Yes, that could be. I’m definitely biased against Smaller. Conspiracy theories are foolishness to me. And what I don’t need right now is someone trying to prove to me that the Bible teaches a conspiracy theory. And I don’t need anyone telling me any portion of the Bible is a fairy tale. What I meant by being fooled has to do more with my ability to observe than with you misrepresenting yourself. I merely finally caught on that you don’t believe in free will. Just as well that I caught on to that late in the game. If I had of known, it might have colored some of my previous responses. Or it might have resulted in no answer at all if I had thought you were simply another Smaller. Just like everyone else, there are certain things that I am biased about. Those of us who are in Christ are rightly considered biased in relation to any negative thing said about Christ and the reality that he represents.

FC

 

[childeye]

Childeye

“Please note I believe in freewill to a point, but am opposed to use it as a means to blame those who are blind.”

I don’t understand what you mean by using the idea of free will as a means to blame the blind. I wouldn’t bother to bring it up, except this is the first time I’ve seen you say that you “believe in freewill to a point”.

Freewill is used to hold men responsible for their actions and justify in one's conviction the legitimacy of, I'll use the term Hades. You know the place where Jesus broke the gates thereof. We all come out of darkness into the light and are therefore in some degree blind and in some degree beginning to see depending on whether you are headed towards the light or away from the Light, that Light being God an Eternal Love, and that darkness being ignorance of Him and in fear through unbelief. Freewill implies people wantonly and knowlingly choose to be evil. To believe someone wantonly and knowingly chooses to be evil is an evil of iteslf which in blindness condemns the fellow blind, that is why you never find God condemning men. Ironically this condemns men by there own words for it shows they give credence to evil as a viable choice rather than count it as the folly of the blind. An overall display of unbelief in the true sense of the word.

I've said it many times I believe in a freewill as defined as knowing the Truth so as to make the distinction from an enslaved will which is blind to or ignorant of the Truth. I've already explained that Truth above. Otherwise people think we are all free in our wills never considering that that which we think is light is actually darkness. Read the parable the eyes are the lamps of the soul.

“you can't believe Christianity is a man made religion and at the same time claim the Christ is sent by God”

Why do you say that?

Jesus is the True Image of God sent by God not conjured by men. That is what the word Christ means. Religion defined as men's various images of god are manmade, but behind the scenes are Satanic for the sake of obscuring the Truth, which as a liar is Satan's vocation. The Christ was crucified by religious and secular authority. The Christ will be the end of religion therefore, including atheism.

 

[Former Christian]

Childeye

“I've said it many times I believe in a freewill as defined as knowing the Truth so as to make the distinction from an enslaved will which is blind to or ignorant of the Truth.â€

Free will, “the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.†(Oxford Dictionary)

The above definition is in relation to the natural man. It emphasizes the ability to choose in regard to the natural without regard to the supernatural, that is, “fateâ€. But I believe there is blindness in relation to the supernatural. There is no freewill in regard to what can’t be seen. Thus it is necessary for God to open our eyes so we can see supernatural reality. Then our free will, our freedom to choose, extends to the supernatural as well. And we can choose whether or not to accept the free gift of salvation in Christ. I see this clearly in the Gospels, Romans, Ephesians; really throughout the Bible.


“Freewill implies people wantonly and knowlingly choose to be evil.â€

Such an idea isn’t according to my understanding of free will or God’s will. But I suppose from the perspective of a Calvinist, that would be a legitimate concern.

Apart from seeing the real reality, morals have to be determined either individually or as a community such as a city, nation, or religion. This doesn’t imply that all people are wantonly and knowingly choosing evil. Yet some do. Still it’s difficult to choose something when one doesn’t know for sure what it is he’s supposed to be choosing, even though there is the conscience.

The Pharisees believed in their own lie, not realizing what they were doing in most cases. Yet when Jesus exposed them and their lie, they attributed what Jesus said and did to Satan. Paul, an honest Pharisee, was carried away with this deception, until Jesus personally revealed the deception to him.

I believe the American nation was originally intended to be Atheistic, seen in the passing of the bill of rights under duress. I believe its government is Greco-Roman in form. I believe that a few of its current laws are contrary to Christian morals, such as abortion and the increasing legitimacy of homosexual relationships. I believe that American laws exist because some choose to wantonly and knowingly do evil things. Should I actually believe that all choose to wantonly and knowingly do evil things, and some are restrained by the fear of repercussions of going against American Law? If so, good reason to enforce the death penalty to the max.

I think you’re noticing the lack of distinctions caused by reactions for and against free will. And it’s good for this to be brought out. Because:

Reactions remove the colors from our sight,
until the contrasts appear as black and white.


“Jesus is the True Image of God sent by God. Religion defined as men's various images of god are manmade but behind the scenes are Satanic, for the sake of obscuring the Truth, which as a liar is Satan's vocation. The Christ was crucified by religious and secular authority. The Christ will be the end of religion including atheism.â€

I used to believe in the dictionary definition of religion, “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or god†(Oxford Dictionary). In that sense I considered Christianity my religion, and eventually the only true religion. Then I discovered that Christianity didn’t include just my own Church and others like it. That was the beginning of my insight into the true nature of Christianity. I began a search for “The True Churchâ€. The true expression of Christianity. And I found it.

By this time, I considered the Bible and Christianity to be part and parcel of the other, the Bible as the initial revelation and Christianity as the current community expression of the revelation. But in the end, it became apparent to me that Christianity doesn’t express what the Bible says is the real expression of its revelation. It expresses neither the one Body of Christ (Eph 1) nor the residence of God in Spirit (Eph 2) nor the mystery of Christ (Eph 3). And what is astonishing, the supreme example of Christianity the same as admitted that fact when it pointed out through its apologists that the expression of the first century was the expression of the first century and the present expression is the expression of the present century. After that it was no longer a matter of differing interpretations. I could see that the Bible and Christianity are two unrelated things. I was able to distinguish between the Bible and Christianity. Something that opposers of Christianity aren’t normally able to do.

Presently, I believe in this definition of religion, “If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.†(Jas 1:26-27 KJV) And from that perspective, Christianity is just another man-made religion that follows that definition even less than some other man-made religions.

I think you realize that I don’t attribute everything to Satan. That is the idea of Christian-made conspiracy theories. A lot of the problems of mankind can only be attributed to mankind. Sometimes to individual humans.

Consider the Holocaust. Satan has no need to attack the Jews because they already believe in a man-made religion. The people of God since the first century are those who are in Christ, Jew and Gentile alike. If Satan was behind the Holocaust, then it would have been Christians who are actually in Christ who would have been set upon, not Jews. The Holocaust is strictly a man-made Holocaust, created by a single depraved person (even insane toward the end).....Hitler; and perpetuated by an equally depraved inner circle. Those who fought against that depravity, would you say that they are equally depraved?

I hope that you will try your best not to get caught up in Christian-made conspiracy theories. The purpose of such theories is to shift responsibility away from where it belongs, the people involved, so they can perpetuate a lie.

If I believed in Christian conspiracy theories, then I would believe that Christians, all Christians, including myself, are under Satan to the same degree as non-Christians, because of the obvious denominational nature of Christianity. And I would believe that I have been given insight from God to preach to the Christians to come out from among them. And if I believed that the Bible was a part of the conspiracy, then that would relieve me of any responsibility for believing in the truth as the Bible portrays it. And to extricate myself from the bondage of Christianity and its “Biblical†thinking, would be freedom indeed. Except for the Satan part, this is a lot like the thinking of Richard Dawkins, who believes that Christianity especially is hindering the progress of Science. And a lot like Witness Lee who started the Recovery (of Christianity, not from addictions) denomination.

If I believed in Christian conspiracy theories, I would agree with your assessment that Christianity and Christ must be one entity or a unity of two entities. I would still realize the denominational nature of Christianity. And based on that assessment I would have no choice but to look elsewhere for objective truth, because it obviously isn’t to be found in Christianity, or in the Christ associated with it.

And that would sadden me. Because what before was to me a great story revealed by God describing His own compassionate nature.....would become only a man-made story, a fictional story, a mythical story, that could at best only serve to make people think and potentially act just a bit more civilized. Science Fiction writers are our modern day writers of mythical stories, writers who have insights into the potential of mankind. I am intrigued at how often Biblical writers, and sometimes writers of other religious traditions, influence Science Fiction writers.

If I thought for one moment that there was a real relationship between Christ and Christianity, other than the obvious relationship of a misappropriated title, it would either be as an Atheist or a seeker among the other religions. My next choice would be Buddhism, simply because I see the kinds of unselfish activism among its celebrities, that should be seen among the celebrities in Christianity. I would like to ask them why.

But I don’t see Christ and Christianity as a single or unified entity. To me, Christ is one entity who is living, Divine, and perfectly human; seated at the right hand of God. And we can experience this entity through the Holy Spirit. Christianity is another entity, a historical entity, that too many think embodies the Body of Christ on earth, representing Jesus Christ on earth. But instead, all it represents is itself and the portion of man-kind that created it. Satan may have been behind a few select individuals. John Calvin the murderer and deceiver for one (an unrepentant murder as a matter of record, a deceiver to anyone who believes Calvinism is a deception). Mary I of England (bloody Mary) for another, so you don’t accuse me of discrimination. But I see mainly the hand of man-kind in Christianity and Satan represented only through the flesh of Christians.

I AGREE that “Jesus is the True Image of God sent by Godâ€.

I DON’T AGREE that Christianity is the image of Christ.

Christianity is only the image of its human creators.

I disagree with the Orthodox/Catholic idea that the Church, and true Christianity as the historical extension of itself, has its source in Jesus Christ, just because it says so.

I disagree that any Protestant community is the embodiment of Jesus Christ in some way, just because it says so.

FC

 

[ivdavid]

Former Christ,

Let me make it very clear at the outset - I am not here to prove that my beliefs are right and true nor am I here to prove somebody else's to be wrong. I have no such authority nor do I have the power to change one's beliefs. This is the sole work of God. What I am here for is to understand what others believe - to understand their entire perspective. I'd like to know where exactly we differ in our beliefs. To maintain the integrity of the discussion, I share my beliefs too - not to impose them on anybody - but that others too may know where I come from. The end goal is for all of us to grow in the knowledge of Christ - which He is sufficient to fulfill - perhaps through our discussions here. If you're not interested in my sharing my beliefs, I could always stop.


Regarding interpretation -

I have wholly accepted your non-interpretative, non-authoritative model of growing in the knowledge of Christ and have agreed upon your every point of concern over what human interpretation and human authority bring with it. That has never been the point of conflict. The conflict that arose in my understanding of your perspective was because of statements like these -

FC - " Those of us who are in Christ are rightly considered biased in relation to any negative thing said about Christ and the reality that he represents."

To take a stand against something negative said about Christ is to impose your beliefs as true(not negative) on another person - which is being authoritative in nature. This seems a polite way of calling it a blasphemy - not unlike many in the 'Christian' tradition while dealing with their dissenters - the very ones you seem to be against, for doing such things. Well, this seemed like a contradiction to me until you wrote this -

"I believe in common sense. Common sense refers to things obviously and intuitively true and real to most everyone who can see things apart from bias."

So I see that common sense is non-interpretative to you and hence could be considered as authoritative certainty. As for me - I'd add to the above quote as "true to most everyone who can see things apart from bias or a lack of knowledge". What is obviously and intuitively true changes with increase in knowledge - ie with increase in the experiential reality of Jesus Christ.


On this note,
FC - "Where the teaching of Christ says that God is not a respecter of persons, Calvinism says that God chooses some to be saved and the rest to be condemned, thus showing that God is indeed a respecter of persons."

If I have understood you correctly, you'd be saying that this is common sense and is hence not interpretative - thereby could be used authoritatively to judge anything contrary to this as negative teachings on Christ.
Well, if that's the case, I'd reiterate that increase in knowledge could change what 'common sense' now holds - an increase in knowledge of the difference between sovereignty and partiality(respecter of persons). That's what changed it for me when it was revealed by God. Specifically whether God is considered a respecter of persons when He chooses Isaac and not Ishmael as the child of promise, when He chooses Jacob over Esau etc.


I see you haven't understood what calvinistic beliefs are actually - it's difficult to judge their truth based on partial knowledge. The glory of God is what is emphasized - His sovereignty being added to all His other attributes. And I say this only as a matter of fact and not to defend this particular denomination.

Besides, what does the man Calvin have to do with one holding calvinistic beliefs today? Isn't it just a reference? Now, if I've had an experiential revelation from Christ regarding my inability to have done a single righteous act all my life until I was regenerated by His grace, and then later I come across a system of doctrine that describes the very same experience as 'total depravity' and I refer to my experiential reality by that name only for reference sake, how has the man Calvin or his followers influenced my belief?

Why then must an individual's experiential reality be categorized as a man-made doctrine worthy of holding no truth when there is no basis for such categorization? And anyway, how is it even possible for one to be certain about denying an added experiential reality? One cannot call another's experience of seeing ducks fly as a deception just because this one has never seen a duck fly and hence believes they cannot do so.

Continued....

 

[ivdavid]

Former Christian,

FC - "The Law reveals the nature of sin..."
That's true. But each of us needs the experiential reality of Christ revealing to us the true nature of sin. You believe that sin is not so utterly sinful so as to have enslaved you into its subjugation all along, in every activity of yours, until you were set free by the truth ie Jesus Christ. I don't believe so. Let's leave it there.


FC - "Did Jesus say to him when he claimed that he kept the law from his youth up, “you are lying†or “you have deceived yourself�"
If you read my previous post, I have illustrated a)how one may keep a commandment in deed and yet not in intent - and also b)how violating a single commandment in any deed or intent of yours would render that deed of yours as a transgression of the law and we know c)how transgression of the law is sin and not righteous.

Jesus here shows how the young man who kept all these other commandments by the letter did not keep the spiritual intent of the law found in its chief commandment - to love God(Matt 6:24). And a transgressor of one is guilty of them all and hence has not kept the law in any act that has violated this commandment. Where is righteousness then?

I think you perceive the law as a group of some independent commandments which ought to be kept and that man is able to keep many of the independent commandments though he may not keep all of them perfectly - and you ask if man is not entitled to the righteousness gained from keeping those many commandments irrespective of the many that he didn't keep. But righteousness is not determined by keeping independent commandments. Rather, none of them taken together should be violated in a single act - and this includes the secret thoughts and intents of the heart too.

FC - "Paul bluntly states that regarding the Law he was blameless."
This looks like proof-texting - let us not consider proof-texting valid in a discussion. Paul being blameless according to the law, in the sense you mean it, concludes that he should have been justified by his keeping the law(Lev 18:5). But that goes against Gal 3:11-12. Also Rom 7:9-11 explains his spiritual review(after regeneration) of what he thought he had kept in the flesh. Rom 7:14 and Rom 8:7 indicate that no unregenerate man can keep the law. Also, one cannot be deemed righteous in any act which is not out of his love for God.

I am curious to know why you are against the doctrine of total depravity - does it not serve in glorifying God more while depriving man of any glory. Does it not exemplify God's love for us in knowing that we have been forgiven so much more. Does it not increase our dependence on God in everything - from beginning to end.

 

[Former Christian]

Ivdavid

All quotes are from the KJV unless otherwise marked.


“Former Christâ€

Freudian slip?


“Let me make it very clear at the outset - I am not here to prove that my beliefs are right and true nor am I here to prove somebody else's to be wrong. I have no such authority nor do I have the power to change one's beliefs. This is the sole work of God. What I am here for is to understand what others believe - to understand their entire perspective. I'd like to know where exactly we differ in our beliefs. To maintain the integrity of the discussion, I share my beliefs too - not to impose them on anybody - but that others too may know where I come from. The end goal is for all of us to grow in the knowledge of Christ - which He is sufficient to fulfill - perhaps through our discussions here.â€

Commendable.


“If you're not interested in my sharing my beliefs, I could always stop.â€

It’s up to you, not me. I will answer any questions you have to the best of my ability. And I will share with you what I believe to the best of my ability. But why are you surprised if my answers are sometimes in contrast to your own stated beliefs? You have stated how your experience is different from mine. And you have stated your own agreement with Calvinism, which is definitely in contrast to what I believe. Why are you upset if I point out the obvious contrast?


“I have wholly accepted your non-interpretative, non-authoritative model of growing in the knowledge of Christ and have agreed upon your every point of concern over what human interpretation and human authority bring with it. That has never been the point of conflict.â€

Have you? That is indeed rare.


“The conflict that arose in my understanding of your perspective was because of statements like these -
FC - " Those of us who are in Christ are rightly considered biased in relation to any negative thing said about Christ and the reality that he represents."â€

Without trying to go back and search for the context, I have to presume that you are understanding this statement in a way that stands out to you.

It doesn’t contradict the position of no authoritative interpretation. It merely claims that non-believers consider us to be biased in relation to our belief in Christ. And we truly are biased in that regard due to what we believe about Christ. They don’t understand Christ in the same way we do, and are just as biased against Christ as we are biased for Christ. Both non-believers and believers, believe what they believe for a reason. And they are automatically biased in favor of what they believe. Neither side can prove anything to the other, at least, not in a way that would be acceptable to both sides. So the bias continues.


“What is obviously and intuitively true changes with increase in knowledge - ie with increase in the experiential reality of Jesus Christ.â€

Good point that is sometimes true. But not always true., We believe in certain basic things in common. For example, the only way to the Father is through Jesus Christ. To us that is a matter of common sense backed up by several uninterpreted Biblical statements. And it is intuitively true among some. And no matter what information we may receive through the teaching of Christ, that piece of common sense will always remain common sense to us. Now, this isn’t common sense to those who don’t believe it. But it is to us. And without this underlying piece of common sense, we wouldn’t have any reason for faith into Christ at all, nor for a continuation of an experience in Christ.

This is an example of common sense just in relation to who we are in Christ. There are other matters of common sense that have a much broader range affecting more than just those who are in Christ. That we can know certain things and act in relation to those things relating to the natural universe around us is an example of that.


“FC - "Where the teaching of Christ says that God is not a respecter of persons, Calvinism says that God chooses some to be saved and the rest to be condemned, thus showing that God is indeed a respecter of persons."
If I have understood you correctly, you'd be saying that this is common sense and is hence not interpretative - thereby could be used authoritatively to judge anything contrary to this as negative teachings on Christ.â€

Yes, your right. It could be taken that way. But it wasn’t my intent. It was merely a contrast between the teaching of Christ as it has been given to me and the teaching of Calvinism. If it came out as an authoritative statement, I’m not surprised. Calvinism does teach that God chooses those who are to be saved and by default chooses the rest to be condemned. And that is common sense to the Calvinist. I just don’t believe it’s in keeping with Paul’s clear uninterpreted statement that God wants all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). Savedbygrace57 tried to prove that the clear uninterpreted statement of Paul means something different by a rather long interpretive statement of his own.

No doubt my distaste for John Calvin and his beliefs come to the surface now and again, and I’m liable to state things accordingly. To me, John Calvin is an unrepentant murderer (a matter of record), and a deceiver (I believe that he is a deceiver of those who follow his teachings). But since I came to that conclusion on my own, I don’t expect you or anyone else to believe what I believe on my say so alone. I would hope that you and others would do the research for yourselves. If you come to a different conclusion than I did, seeing something different, then of course I would expect you to say according to what you see.


“The glory of God is what is emphasizedâ€

The only ultimate emphasis that I know of in Calvinism is the Sovereignty of God. The five sub emphases of the five points issue from that ultimate emphasis. And any doctrinal emphasis has a tendency to result in misunderstandings of other issues. Nevertheless, I don’t see how God choosing some over others to be saved is to the glory of God. Would you still think that it is to the glory of God if you knew you were among the condemned? And all will know eventually. Or do you think that the condemned won’t care any more then when they know, then they do now while in ignorance?


“Besides, what does the man Calvin have to do with one holding calvinistic beliefs today? Isn't it just a reference? Now, if I've had an experiential revelation from Christ regarding my inability to have done a single righteous act all my life until I was regenerated by His grace, and then later I come across a system of doctrine that describes the very same experience as 'total depravity' and I refer to my experiential reality by that name only for reference sake, how has the man Calvin or his followers influenced my belief?
Why then must an individual's experiential reality be categorized as a man-made doctrine worthy of holding no truth when there is no basis for such categorization? And anyway, how is it even possible for one to be certain about denying an added experiential reality? One cannot call another's experience of seeing ducks fly as a deception just because this one has never seen a duck fly and hence believes they cannot do so.â€

A great deal. One must always consider the source.

As far as experience is concerned, what can we say about the fact that our experiences are so totally different and may have led us to adhere to different doctrinal ideas? What can we say when there is only one reality? It could be, of course, that one of us has interpreted his experience wrongly. And if so, how could such a subjective matter be resolved? By quoting the Bible? How will this help anyone already given to interpretation? The quotes would just be interpreted according to the experience, would it not?

More to follow.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Ivdavid

“FC - "Did Jesus say to him when he claimed that he kept the law from his youth up, “you are lying†or “you have deceived yourself�"
If you read my previous post, I have illustrated a)how one may keep a commandment in deed and yet not in intent - and also b)how violating a single commandment in any deed or intent of yours would render that deed of yours as a transgression of the law and we know c)how transgression of the law is sin and not righteous.â€

So from that you deduce that it’s impossible to do anything righteous? Even though people do righteous things all the time all around you? And I certainly disagree with the 2nd point. Deeds stand on their own. I disagree with your interpretation of James 2, which I will cover somewhat a little later.

OK. Let us concede that we aren’t able to determine intent. But how does that change anything? If a righteous act is performed, isn’t it still performed, isn’t it still a righteous act, regardless of what the intent might be? If I help the poor because it makes me feel good and has nothing to do with God whatsoever, does that mean that the righteous act wasn’t actually executed, wasn’t actually a righteous act?

As I remember, you said that it was your experience that you never did anything righteous in your life. And because of that personal experience you believe that no one can perform a righteous act. You know yourself better than anyone. And I admit that I sure wouldn’t have wanted to be around you if your estimation of yourself is accurate. I have known some very depraved people, and I still keep as far from that kind as I can. Have to be on guard every second and certainly can’t turn my back on them. And even if your own estimation of your state is true, why extend what you were on to everyone else? Are you an old man, thinking that what you are is so much better now? I’m relatively young. I think that I have certain positive attributes, just as did Paul. But also just as Paul, I also consider them worthless in comparison to the attributes of Jesus, to whom I’m gradually being conformed.

Is it possible that we all tend to interpret the Bible according to our own pre-Christ experiences? If so, that certainly wouldn’t be being transformed by the renewing of our minds. If I thought that everyone was totally depraved, I would be a nervous wreck and very paranoid. And from my experience of Christianity, I would see no reason to exclude them.


“Jesus here shows how the young man who kept all these other commandments by the letter did not keep the spiritual intent of the law found in its chief commandment - to love God(Matt 6:24). And a transgressor of one is guilty of them all and hence has not kept the law in any act that has violated this commandment. Where is righteousness then?â€

Matthew 6:24, “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.â€

Jesus also said, “Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.†(Mat 22:36-40)

Answer me this: do you think that it’s possible for anyone to fully love another like himself as a non-believer. As a believer? If yes, do you think that all or even some do?


“I think you perceive the law as a group of some independent commandments which ought to be kept and that man is able to keep many of the independent commandments though he may not keep all of them perfectly - and you ask if man is not entitled to the righteousness gained from keeping those many commandments irrespective of the many that he didn't keep. But righteousness is not determined by keeping independent commandments. Rather, none of them taken together should be violated in a single act - and this includes the secret thoughts and intents of the heart too.â€

What you think I perceive is not how I perceive the Law.

Didn’t you say,

“FC - "The Law reveals the nature of sin..."
That's true. But each of us needs the experiential reality of Christ revealing to us the true nature of sin. You believe that sin is not so utterly sinful so as to have enslaved you into its subjugation all along, in every activity of yours, until you were set free by the truth ie Jesus Christ. I don't believe so. Let's leave it there. â€



“FC - "Paul bluntly states that regarding the Law he was blameless."
This looks like proof-texting - let us not consider proof-texting valid in a discussion.â€

Ok! Now, that’s as bad as calling Genesis a fairy tale. Your thoughts betray you. Look to yourself before you accuse.

Paul said what he said. If you reject it, and try to interpret what he said to mean something different than what he said, there can be no common ground between us. And you prove that “I have wholly accepted your non-interpretative, non-authoritative model†is not true at all. Hopefully because you have yet to understand the model.

More to follow.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Ivdavid

“Paul being blameless according to the law, in the sense you mean it, concludes that he should have been justified by his keeping the law(Lev 18:5). But that goes against Gal 3:11-12. Also Rom 7:9-11 explains his spiritual review(after regeneration) of what he thought he had kept in the flesh. Rom 7:14 and Rom 8:7 indicate that no unregenerate man can keep the law. Also, one cannot be deemed righteous in any act which is not out of his love for God.â€

Sense? What sense? Philippians 3:6 in its context:

Philippians 3:4-6, “Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.â€

Did you think that the flesh has no capability? You constantly exercised this capability by your own admission. It’s no wonder that you have such a hard time understanding the soul with its own capabilities if all you experienced was the capabilities of the flesh. Your parents must have went through hell, and my sympathies reach out to them if so. It is capabilities of the soul that can build true civilizations. Paul mentions the soul in this letter twice, but not in this context because he knew whereof he spoke.

The Greek word translated blameless, means precisely that. One lexicon adds, “deserving no censure, free from fault or defectâ€.

But what does Paul think of these things so common to us all and in which he excelled, and caused him to persecute those in Christ?

Philippians 3:7, “But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.â€

Why?

Philippians 3:8-11, “Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.â€

What a glorious comparison. Paul had it all as far as the world is concerned. He was eminently successful. Yet he counted it all dung in comparison to what he has in Christ.


James 2:10

James 2:8-9, “If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.â€

After this he says,

James 2:10, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.â€

But he doesn’t stop there.

James 2:11-13. “For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.â€

Law of liberty? What is that?

James 2:14 “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?â€

Ah, the Law of faith. What is the context of Romans 1-8? Justification by faith, isn’t it? Paul uses therein the term “law of faithâ€,

Romans 3:27-28, “Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.â€

That is the same contextual idea by Paul as here by James. Paul emphasizes that Justification is not by Law. James here is emphasizing that Justification is by both faith and works, but not by Law because of the law of liberty or faith.

Many use 2:10 as if it’s an isolated verse. And used in this way apart from its context, it’s an interpretation. This verse doesn’t apply to everyone. It applies to the ones to whom it is written. And that is “whosoever shall keep the whole law†(2:10). The letter is written to “the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad†(Jas 1:1). This is a letter to Jews, Jews who still think that they must keep the Law in order to be Justified. Jews who still have no understanding of the matter of faith. The context of this verse is explaining the matter of faith to them. This doesn’t in the slightest relate to Gentiles, unless it’s Gentiles who are trying to keep the Law of the Jews. But it does relate to Luther’s idea of Justification by faith alone.

James 2:24, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.â€


“I am curious to know why you are against the doctrine of total depravity - does it not serve in glorifying God more while depriving man of any glory. Does it not exemplify God's love for us in knowing that we have been forgiven so much more. Does it not increase our dependence on God in everything - from beginning to end.â€

You said, “I see you haven't understood what calvinistic beliefs are actually - it's difficult to judge their truth based on partial knowledge.â€

Shouldn’t you have defined total depravity for me so I can respond according to knowledge?

The definition of depravity in the Oxford Dictionary, “Christian Theology: the innate corruptness of human nature, due to original sin.†What makes that definition interesting to me is that it’s how I view Christianity, an innate corruption.

A clue. Depravity is the same as sin. It isn’t the same for everyone (Rom 5:12-14).


You said, “Let me make it very clear at the outset - I am not here to prove that my beliefs are right and true nor am I here to prove somebody else's to be wrong.â€

You’re going to have to make up your mind about that. Certainly looks to me like you’re doing you’re best to prove me wrong in your last two posts. And since I’m not a Calvinist, in fact rather anti-Calvinist, and you are a Calvinist, it’s an innate reaction on your part. I ran across a member of a Holiness denomination on the internet not long ago. I’m moderate concerning Calvinism compared to him. Maybe you should ask him some questions. I’m not anything but an ordinary guy. But take care you don’t end up like the Christian on YouTube who became an Atheist because he wrangled with someone smarter than himself, and then believed his arguments against Christianity. Was he really saved? He thought so. But he may have only believed in his mind alone. And the mind is subject to change with every new thing if we let it.

There are many like that in Christianity, who believe in their mind apart from the Spirit, and some are more self-evident than others. That is why Paul said to be transformed by the renewing of the mind, not be changed by every new doctrine that we learn. And one must see Romans 12:2 in the light of 2Corinthians 3:17-18 (in the KJV, the Greek word translated here as â€change†is the same Greek word translated “transformed†in Rom 12:2; a problem rectified in the modern translations). The two together show that the transformation is Spiritual, through the Spirit of God. Thus the transformation is not through the natural mind alone through interpretation. Is what I just said an interpretation?

FC