FREE WILL

[childeye]

close to this

revalation 3

And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.

2Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God.
3Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.
4Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy. 5He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.


fc. i am curious you have claimed that you are no longer a christian yet you want eternal security? if you are that concerned why not repent and come back?

Jasoncram, I would be interested in how you define freewill in your thought process. The fact that you quote this scripture showimg that a person can be blotted from the book of life indicates that you believe men can still mess up their calling, which is not the only scripture that vindicates this. I wish when this thread was started we could have first consulted on what a free will is. Numerous dictionaries offer numerous and differing definitions. I take the word at it's face value. Will is desire and free indicates we can desire whatever we want to. It is up to our discretion. Former Christian is using an oxford dictionary which is about freedom of action not acknowledging the desire that precedes the action. Others simply regard freewill as the ability to choose again disregarding the term will as desire.

 

[xounstaer]

i agree with you childeye.
as i typed the previous post here of mine, i kind of like allready showed i wasnt purely sure and so.

and not just the desire, but also things that led to action, wether free or not freewillingly.

 

[jasoncran]

Jasoncram, I would be interested in how you define freewill in your thought process. The fact that you quote this scripture showimg that a person can be blotted from the book of life indicates that you believe men can still mess up their calling, which is not the only scripture that vindicates this. I wish when this thread was started we could have first consulted on what a free will is. Numerous dictionaries offer numerous and differing definitions. I take the word at it's face value. Will is desire and free indicates we can desire whatever we want to. It is up to our discretion. Former Christian is using an oxford dictionary which is about freedom of action not acknowledging the desire that precedes the action. Others simply regard freewill as the ability to choose again disregarding the term will as desire.

common sense. i am able to walk away from the lord if i so choose. and uh desire is will.

if you tell me in spanish i desire this or that its desear. its close to to like or to love and its means choice or preference.

as in i like cookies. no bias there from any calvinists influence take that verses as it says.i can support it elsewhere.

for if ye dont forgive neither shall ye be forgiven.so we can enter in heaven with wilful knowing that we sinned.

especially with the idea of what parables jesus used to show that truth.

 

[Former Christian]

Izzy

If you read this, contact me again. Your last message was lost in cyberspace.

Former Christian

 

[ivdavid]

common sense. i am able to walk away from the lord if i so choose. and uh desire is will.

Is that the right measure to gauge your freedom? I'm not able to word it properly...but something seems amiss.

I somehow feel the question should not be if one is able to walk away from the Lord if he so chooses - it is whether he can walk towards Him if he so chooses. Man is very capable of rejecting God's counsel and he does so with a hardened heart. But that's where we need God - we need God's grace to change the very nature of this person - a new heart, renewed spirit, His own Spirit in us.

Let's break it down to the simpler forms - can man choose to love God before God has given him a new heart and renewed his spirit?
Also, can man, before he believes in Christ, do anything or any part of anything that can be deemed good by God?

I'm just asking to know whether you believe anything is good in us, that is in our flesh.

 

[Former Christian]

IVDavid

I think that you misunderstanding what I am saying. Sovereignty and mercy can't be separated in the sense that you are. Sure one could go by the letter of the law, but then where is the Wisdom? And where is the expression of Agape? Take the example of Solomon and the two babies, one dead and one alive. Perhaps reading this example will help you to see where I'm coming from.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Jasoncran

Rev 3:4. Yes, I remember it now. Thanks.

You asked, " i am curious you have claimed that you are no longer a christian yet you want eternal security? if you are that concerned why not repent and come back?"

Repent of what? I believe that I am in Christ and that Christianity doesn't represent the Bible. Why would I want to return to something that I don't believe in? For example, You were a former JW. You no longer believe that they represent the Bible. Would you want to repent and return to the JW's?

FC

 

[ivdavid]

FC,

Sure one could go by the letter of the law, but then where is the Wisdom? And where is the expression of Agape?

I know this is what you have intended all along. And I too agree with you. Without mercy, there would be no life. I am not denying this.

I only wanted to emphasize this - that the harshness of the absence of mercy must not incline us to think that the absence of mercy is wrong. This is all I'm striving to defend. None of us have a claim on mercy - it is up to the person who has the power to show mercy or not. Whether he chooses to be merciful or chooses to render justice - he does not commit any wrong. That's all I want to state. Would you agree with me on this?

And yes, seconding your thought, I do agree that God showing forth His mercy also reveals His glory in His wisdom and love.

I believe that I am in Christ and that Christianity doesn't represent the Bible.

I wouldn't want to assume what you meant by that - so please could you elaborate. I'm pretty sure you're referring to 'Christianity' as 'what professing Christians practice today' and not as 'what God ordained believers in Christ to practice'. What notable points of divergence has caught your attention?

EDIT: I'd like to quickly set what I'm saying in context - to avoid being misunderstood. I am not advocating that being unmerciful is right or any such thing. All of us ought to be merciful to one another as our Father is merciful toward us - in fact, for that very reason. Freely we receive, freely we ought to give. No, my sole intention is to state that God is not obligated to be merciful to anyone and that if He didn't show mercy even to a single person - He is still good and holy and just and perfect and light and love. The fact that He does show mercy shows forth another trait of His. Once we are clear that God does not owe anybody mercy and that He can sovereignly show mercy and compassion to whom He wills, we can learn much more of His ways in humility. And such knowledge leads to the praise of His glory and our peace.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
If I had free will, the first thing I would do is abolish Hell. The next thing I'd abolish is the aging process so we'd all stay forever 21.

Then I'd abolish corporations and chain stores. And I'd also abolish Wall Street, commodities trading, and public stock offerings.

I'd surely abolish campaign contributions from businessmen, corporations, and the financial services sector. Next; I'd abolish lobbyists.

I'd also abolish the patenting of genetically modified foods, the feeding of cows, pigs, chickens, and fish corn-based fodders and I'd abolish injections of growth hormones and milk inducers: and I'd also abolish any, and all forms of water privatization along with nitrates, phosphates, and anhydrous ammonia fertilizers.

And I would certainly make it a high priority to abolish high fructose corn syrup. I'd also abolish vending machines and all forms of junk food on school property along with the government's power to dictate minimum calorie content of subsidized school lunches. There's any number of things I'd abolish were I to have free will.

Nobody but God has freedom of will; the rest of us merely have the freedom to choose from available options. It is not within the scope of my freedom to abolish Hell, but it is within the scope of my freedoms to choose not to go there.

†. Prv 22:3 . . A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.


C.L.I.F.F.
|

 

[Eventide]

It is not within the scope of my freedom to abolish Hell, but it is within the scope of my freedoms to choose not to go there.

AMEN to that..

I think that it's pretty sad that so many are led to believe that they have no say in the matter.

 

[Former Christian]

Ivdavid

You asked, “it is up to the person who has the power to show mercy or not. Whether he chooses to be merciful or chooses to render justice - he does not commit any wrong. That's all I want to state. Would you agree with me on this? ”

About as much wrong as faith without works. As far as your edit, I see what you are getting at. But I think that God minus any trait would no longer be God.

It is God’s nature to be merciful. Thus not being merciful would be against the nature of God and God would no longer be God. If a man acts against nature it would not destroy the man, it would change the man. But God isn’t a man. The nature of God can’t be changed without God no longer being God. It is one of the ways that we can tell if someone is worshipping God or a creation of man. If the God who is worshipped can be changed, then it is not God who is being worshipped, it is a creation of man and thus subject to the changing ideas of man.


Christianity

Christianity is one thing and the Bible is another thing. And the two don’t jive. And that’s OK if you’re a Catholic because the Bible isn’t the only authority. I’m not now nor ever was a Catholic.

I originally was a member of a Protestant denomination. Through it I became convinced that the nature of the Bible is that of authority because of its source or God. I also became convinced that whatever anyone claims about the content of the Bible, it is to be subjugated to the Bible itself. Protestants believe that the Bible is the only authority for God’s revelation to man. In referencing Protestants here, I am not referring to the liberals who are more like Christian philosophers, most of whom believe that the source of the Bible is man. And again in saying this I am not referring to such philosophers as William Lane Craig who is a staunch defender of conservative Biblical values.

I independently came to the conclusion, right or wrong, that in any Church, Jesus is the only living authority because he is the head of the Church. And Jesus uses the Bible through the Holy Spirit to teach his sheep. Those who aren’t his sheep won’t hear his voice. And as I began to understand Christianity, I saw something entirely different.

Peter said that an elder is not to lord it over others (1 Pet 5). That is, the elder has no authority. A lord is one who has authority. The elder is only to feed the flock. Peter was both an Apostle and an elder. If anyone had the right to claim to be an authority as an elder it was Peter. Yet he said that elders are not to be lords, that is, not to exercise authority over the flock. And I believe that Peter said that very clearly. And if Paul is thought to say something else, then it is Paul who is being interpreted. Because even Paul states that there is only one Lord in relation to the Church (Eph 4).

But what do we have in Christianity? Authoritative elders propagating authoritative doctrines that become the distinctions that divide. Denominationalism has been the result. And this situation has been the nature of Christianity from the beginning.

One of the earliest non-Biblical writers claims that one needs to be under the authority of the Bishop; against the clear advice of Peter. Who has more authority, Peter or this early writer of the second century. If you’re a Catholic you would answer that the one interprets the other. Which is reasonable if one believes that the practice of interpretation is legitimate. And if one believes that the interpretations are a continuation of the revelation of God through the Holy Spirit. Which is precisely what Catholics believe. They believe in the Divine source of the Bible. But they also believe in the Divine source of the interpretations of the Bible that have become an authority by virtue of being a part of Catholic Tradition. It is a part of their three pronged approach to authority that includes the Bible, Church Tradition, and the contemporary interpreter or the Magisterium of which the Pope is the head. Thus they don’t believe that the original Protestant approach to authority, Sola Scriptura, is the correct approach to authority.

Now, is the Protestant approach to authority really any different from the Catholic approach? Do they believe that the Bible is the word of God? Do they practice Biblical interpretation? Do they have Traditions? Are their leaders contemporary Biblical interpreters? The answer is yes, with the exception of brand new denominations that don’t have a Tradition as yet.

Does Christianity believe that the Bible can only be properly understood through proper interpretation? Not all. There are some who believe that their interpretations are not interpretations, just what the Bible is saying in different words. Then why are there divisions? Has Christianity become so engrossed with semantics that they can no longer understand one another? That would make communication very difficult at best, and the idea of dialogue under such circumstances ludicrous.

The common practice in Christianity is the practice of Biblical interpretation. And the interpretations have taken on sufficient authority to become distinctions that are the basis for division in the form of distinct denominations. In Christianity, the interpreter is the authority in the Churches. And where the rubber meets the road, this gives the interpreter more authority than that which is interpreted or the Bible. It gives the interpreter more authority than the legitimate authoritative teacher of the Bible, or Jesus Christ. It gives the interpreter more authority than the source of the Bible or God.

I believe that the Bible and Christianity are different. I still believe that the Bible has more authority than Christianity due to its source and use by God. And that is why I am a

Former Christian

 

[Former Christian]

Webers_Home

So basically you would abolish the universe as it currently exists? Do we get any say in this? Just kidding.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Originally Posted by Webers_Home
It is not within the scope of my freedom to abolish Hell, but it is within the scope of my freedoms to choose not to go there.

AMEN to that..

I think that it's pretty sad that so many are led to believe that they have no say in the matter.


There you go! (unquote--McCloud)

FC

 

[childeye]

common sense. i am able to walk away from the lord if i so choose. and uh desire is will.

if you tell me in spanish i desire this or that its desear. its close to to like or to love and its means choice or preference.

as in i like cookies. no bias there from any calvinists influence take that verses as it says.i can support it elsewhere.

for if ye dont forgive neither shall ye be forgiven.so we can enter in heaven with wilful knowing that we sinned.

especially with the idea of what parables jesus used to show that truth.

Yes I thought that's what you meant by your words. Of course you are in line with Former Christians' Oxford definition which is actually freedom of action as in I can wiggle my toes if I so choose. Are you cognizant of the fact that when I put "if", in front of "I so choose" it bypasses in reasoning the issue of whether the will is free? It would be more accurate for me to say, if I had a free desire I could choose to be hungry for a piece of dung. This addressess the issue of a freewill head on and does not allow the reasoning to be blinded to the Truth. Of course I don't believe for a second I could conjure the desire to eat dung. Nor do I believe anyone could conjure the desire to walk away from God one second and then conjure the desire to Love Him with all one's heart mind and soul the next and then back again. God is our maker. To not trust Him so that you can walk away is corrupt thinking not a free will.

So men with corrupt minds walk away from God not men with freewills.

The will is predicated upon the Spirit hence Jesus said,"The works of your Father you will do". Notice the definitive words of The One sent by God so that men might believe in him. Yet these children of Satan argued that they were free and in bondage to no one and would not believe him. Also Paul verified this calling himself in chains to Christ, and testifying that the carnal mind cannot be subject to God. And also David wrote in the Psalms, "Where can I go that you are not there?". David knew there is One God called the Most High and Job knew that his life was not his own.

I agree with the Christ and all of these men of God.
Also notice that you said "willfull knowing you sinned". I don't mean to appear condescending but either you made a typo or misspoke. So not being sure, I would simply remind you that men had to be told they sinned. Even now the Holy Spirit convicts of sin and not ourselves.

I believe your point is that men can sin, true enough. But for a will to be free they must show they can not sin.

 

[childeye]

Originally Posted by Webers_Home
It is not within the scope of my freedom to abolish Hell, but it is within the scope of my freedoms to choose not to go there.

AMEN to that..

I think that it's pretty sad that so many are led to believe that they have no say in the matter.


There you go! (unquote--McCloud)

FC

You all are confused. Christ bought you the freedom you speak of. Rather say I was dead in my bondage to sin till the Christ came and purchased me with his own life through great torture. Yeah you had no say in the matter.

 

[jasoncran]

Yes I thought that's what you meant by your words. Of course you are in line with Former Christians' Oxford definition which is actually freedom of action as in I can wiggle my toes if I so choose. Are you cognizant of the fact that when I put "if", in front of "I so choose" it bypasses in reasoning the issue of whether the will is free? It would be more accurate for me to say, if I had a free desire I could choose to be hungry for a piece of dung. This addressess the issue of a freewill head on and does not allow the reasoning to be blinded to the Truth. Of course I don't believe for a second I could conjure the desire to eat dung. Nor do I believe anyone could conjure the desire to walk away from God one second and then conjure the desire to Love Him with all one's heart mind and soul the next and then back again. God is our maker. To not trust Him so that you can walk away is corrupt thinking not a free will.

So men with corrupt minds walk away from God not men with freewills.

The will is predicated upon the Spirit hence Jesus said,"The works of your Father you will do". Notice the definitive words of The One sent by God so that men might believe in him. Yet these children of Satan argued that they were free and in bondage to no one and would not believe him. Also Paul verified this calling himself in chains to Christ, and testifying that the carnal mind cannot be subject to God. And also David wrote in the Psalms, "Where can I go that you are not there?". David knew there is One God called the Most High and Job knew that his life was not his own.

I agree with the Christ and all of these men of God.
Also notice that you said "willfull knowing you sinned". I don't mean to appear condescending but either you made a typo or misspoke. So not being sure, I would simply remind you that men had to be told they sinned. Even now the Holy Spirit convicts of sin and not ourselves.

I believe your point is that men can sin, true enough. But for a will to be free they must show they can not sin.

willingly sin.

i'm sorry. but i dont buy that position does the devil make one sin. does he make on murder? he can set the tempation up and we are powerless.

but unless you can show me that adam didnt have a choice but to sin, your point is moot as evil can be laid at God's feet for that argument.

he failed to act when hitler did his thing. after hitler died in sin and god didnt draw him in.or the fact that babies by default who no not sin are in hell, after all man is totally depraved. he cant by default be able to be sinless or some how unaware of his sin.

i know that you may not espouse that but i am sorry, its logical there if you take that way.

you also cherry picked one verse. there,nice.how does one fall away from the faith if one never came to it?ie the great falling away.

i dont see the christian faith as the new judiasm where its jew is righteous by birth and blessed mentallity and the gentiles are stoking the fires of hell. whereas modern calvinism teaches that the sinners that dont repent werent meant to and are stoking the fires of hell so that we that are saved wont go there.

when you can reach into my mind and knowingly have acess to my testimony of when i rebelled days after my sinners prayer and went into the gay/bi lifestyle that will convince me your doctrine is real.

i didnt plan that but i choose to live in sin and the longer i remained the more i didnt want god.if i stayed there the more likely i would have reached the point of no return.

 

[Elijah674]

willingly sin.

i'm sorry. but i dont buy that position does the devil make one sin. does he make on murder? he can set the tempation up and we are powerless.

but unless you can show me that adam didnt have a choice but to sin, your point is moot as evil can be laid at God's feet for that argument.

he failed to act when hitler did his thing. after hitler died in sin and god didnt draw him in.or the fact that babies by default who no not sin are in hell, after all man is totally depraved. he cant by default be able to be sinless or some how unaware of his sin.

i know that you may not espouse that but i am sorry, its logical there if you take that way.

you also cherry picked one verse. there,nice.how does one fall away from the faith if one never came to it?ie the great falling away.

i dont see the christian faith as the new judiasm where its jew is righteous by birth and blessed mentallity and the gentiles are stoking the fires of hell. whereas modern calvinism teaches that the sinners that dont repent werent meant to and are stoking the fires of hell so that we that are saved wont go there.

when you can reach into my mind and knowingly have acess to my testimony of when i rebelled days after my sinners prayer and went into the gay/bi lifestyle that will convince me your doctrine is real.

i didnt plan that but i choose to live in sin and the longer i remained the more i didnt want god.if i stayed there the more likely i would have reached the point of no return.

Gen. 4:7 finds satan's first total convert. A mature man, who had been faithful in early years, up untile this being the first 'fatal maturel' flaw recorded. Christ spoke directly to Cain.. & another was there also it appears!

Christ gave Cain the last MATURE Chance of Repentance before he was fully turned over to satan as'his DESIRE'. (the 'mature' sin against the Holy Ghost) Then Cain became satan's first convert to murder his brother. We remember that Christ stated that satan was a murder from the beginning!

--Elijah

 

[childeye]

willingly sin.

i'm sorry. but i dont buy that position does the devil make one sin. does he make on murder? he can set the tempation up and we are powerless.

but unless you can show me that adam didnt have a choice but to sin, your point is moot as evil can be laid at God's feet for that argument.

Adam's choice to disobey God is 20\20 hindsight, the option was there but what good is it without the power to choose it. It seems to me given the same conditions he would do the same thing again if nothing had changed, unless I believe in chance which would make obedience or disobedience a toss of a coin rather than a decision based on any moral reasoning. God told Adam not to eat. I don't see how evil can be laid at God's feet regarding Adam's mistake. We know the devil causes people to murder if Christ is to be believed. John 8:40-44. There are many instances in scripture where Satan tried to stop the Truth by murder. It's not by coincidence that the apostles were all killed. Satan rules through lies even as God rules through Truth. The bible clearly states he decieves the whole world. Anyone preaching the Truth will be persecuted by those who are deceived. I experience this firsthand all the time. Hence Jesus says forgive them they know not what they do.

he failed to act when hitler did his thing. after hitler died in sin and god didnt draw him in.or the fact that babies by default who no not sin are in hell, after all man is totally depraved. he cant by default be able to be sinless or some how unaware of his sin.

Very few men are totally depraved I would suspect since they would be insanely ruled by fear. King David was unaware of his sin and it was grievous. As for Hitler I am sure he was ruled by lies and was defeated.
i know that you may not espouse that but i am sorry, its logical there if you take that way.

you also cherry picked one verse. there,nice.how does one fall away from the faith if one never came to it?ie the great falling away.

I don't understand what you mean by this. What do you mean I cherry pick? I quoted what was applicable.

i dont see the christian faith as the new judiasm where its jew is righteous by birth and blessed mentallity and the gentiles are stoking the fires of hell. whereas modern calvinism teaches that the sinners that dont repent werent meant to and are stoking the fires of hell so that we that are saved wont go there.

Why does everyone always bring up Calvinism?

when you can reach into my mind and knowingly have acess to my testimony of when i rebelled days after my sinners prayer and went into the gay/bi lifestyle that will convince me your doctrine is real.

Why must I be a mind reader to be regarded as speaking what is true?

i didnt plan that but i choose to live in sin and the longer i remained the more i didnt want god.if i stayed there the more likely i would have reached the point of no return.

I understand your position but of course you wouldn't want God if you were living in sin. Still you don't think it was the Holy Spirit that convicted you of sin?

 

[warhorse]

Well to keep this short and simple i tend to agree with the armenian position up to salvation, and then some of the calvenist position from salvation forward. God did not give us the right to freely choose our paths, but he does give us the freedom to do right or wrong.

God is indeed soveriegn, but that does not mean he chooses to fully excercise that authority. At least not yet. So God has called all men to repentance and some will choose repentance and some will not.
That being said, at salvation our relationship with God changes in its very nature. We invite God into our hearts and turn our lives over to him. He then seals us unto the day of redemption with his holy spirit and has predestined those in christ to be conformed to his image. Thus i believe we have a defacto free will up to salvation, and then are predestined to live as christ after salvation. Though many in the church still choose to dig in there feet and refuse to behave as christ would lead.

 

[Webers_Home]

So basically you would abolish the universe as it currently exists? Do we get any say in this?

If I had free will, I would abolish everybody else's will and leave people with only the choice to either do things my way, or the highway. And if aliens ever landed here while I'm in sovereign control; they'd get slapped with fines for parking their starships on federal property without a permit. And then I'd abolish space travel.

After that, I'd outlaw any and all societies and economies whose very existence relies upon fossil fuels; along with banning the burning of same for any purpose whatsoever. I would put a stop to outsourcing too, and to garment industry sweat shops; I would also stop any and all mining and drilling for non-renewable resources like coal, natural gas, and petroleum. Open pit mines like Anaconda's massive copper craters would no longer be permitted anywhere within my jurisdiction.

The chief executive officers of businesses like Nestle's, Suez, Thames, and Bechtel would be rounded up and burned at the stake for what they've done to people's water rights all over the globe.

†.Mtt 13:41-42 . . The Son of Man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire : there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

C.L.I.F.F.
|