FREE WILL

[Former Christian]

Webers_Home

LOL Be merciful, oh Ceasar.

FC

 

[ivdavid]

FC,

You have raised so many important points in your last post addressed to me, I'll have to take them slowly...Thank you for sharing that.

.... whatever anyone claims about the content of the Bible, it is to be subjugated to the Bible itself.

True.

...in any Church, Jesus is the only living authority because he is the head of the Church.....That is, the elder has no authority.

True - when you equate authority with power/control. You need to simultaneously concede that God has indeed given some people charge over us - ie they have been given authority by God where authority implies responsibility over us. The problem here is in discerning who is who. I'd say that those who don't lord over others are possible caretakers and governors while those who try to authoritatively usurp power/control for themselves are not ordained by God.

...this gives the interpreter more authority than that which is interpreted or the Bible.

Sad, but true in most cases.


Now I have stated the above to say that I agree with all of the chief points you have raised. I'd like to dwell some more on a couple of them...

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.

I honestly don't know how you meant this - but try and see how it came across to me. The way I see it - you have "interpreted" the Bible to be the sole authority in knowing God and that interpretation has taken on sufficient "authority" in your mind - enough to make a "distinction" between the Bible and the 'Christianity' out there - and this distinction is the basis for your "division" from the mainstream practice as a "distinct denomination", namely 'Former Christian'.

Now please note, I am not against anything you said. I have already stated that I concur with your beliefs on sola Scriptura and the need to avoid exerting power/control. I'm just stating that this is the way it is. When led by God, it turns out right - when led by the flesh, it turns out to be the flawed version out there. This is what happens when people differ in their beliefs - and only God is sufficient to make us of one mind.

There are some who believe that their interpretations are not interpretations, just what the Bible is saying in different words.

For what it's worth, that's not the way it works. We use different words to say different things. It may amount to the same particular end result but perhaps the emphasis would be different. The message would be different. It's not the same at all.

Has Christianity become so engrossed with semantics that they can no longer understand one another?

Semantics is not the issue here - the underlying beliefs are. We could agree upon the same set of words with the words meaning different things thereby constituting different beliefs in each of us. A case in point - what do we mean by "believing in Christ"? My own understanding of these exact words has changed from before I became a believer to after that. Have the words changed - No. Has my understanding of it changed - yes. So, what does believing in Christ actually mean? You'd surely agree that this being the crux of the Bible, adherents to the Bible have to be united on this - eventually at least.

 

[Eventide]

You all are confused.

Certainly a possibility.. how about for you ? Is it possible that you might be confused ?

Christ bought you the freedom you speak of.

There's no doubt about that..

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.

Were you free to believe the gospel after you heard it ? Did you need to repent and have faith in Christ or was it all automatic for you ?

 

[jasoncran]

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?

i had the CHOICE to ignore him.

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

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

for God is longsuffering willing that none should perish.

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

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

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

 

[Webers_Home]

LOL Be merciful, oh Ceasar.

You know the old saying : Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely? Well, that would be me. I could never be trusted with free will. Not even Christ would make it for very long in my world as I'd no doubt eventually have to evict him for speaking out against my chronic abuse of human rights. Like they say : This town isn't big enough for both of us.

One of the most basic of Christian prayers goes like this :

"Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

Sorry; but that prayer would be summarily outlawed and strictly enforced in my world if I had free will. I would permit God to continue to have His own way in heaven; that would be okay; but my will would be done on earth.

†. Gen 3:22 . . And the Lord God said : Behold, the man is become as one of us

Oh m' gosh! Was he talking about little ol' moi? Yep; that's me alright : God Weber.

C.L.I.F.F.
|

 

[Elijah674]

You know the old saying : Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely? Well, that would be me. I could never be trusted with free will. Not even Christ would make it for very long in my world as I'd no doubt eventually have to evict him for speaking out against my chronic abuse of human rights. Like they say : This town isn't big enough for both of us.

One of the most basic of Christian prayers goes like this :

"Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

Sorry; but that prayer would be summarily outlawed and strictly enforced in my world if I had free will. I would permit God to continue to have His own way in heaven; that would be okay; but my will would be done on earth.

†. Gen 3:22 . . And the Lord God said : Behold, the man is become as one of us

Oh m' gosh! Was he talking about little ol' moi? Yep; that's me alright : God Weber.

C.L.I.F.F.
|

When you [post] these ones, how about confessing to satire? Nah. 1:9
--Elijah

 

[smaller]

Free will is a logical fallacy.

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

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

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

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

s

 

[yoamocuy]

Free will is a logical fallacy.

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

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

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

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

s

What exactly is free will? Does it necessarily have to be equated with being able to make a decision alone? or could free will simply be the ability to make a decision based on the 2 wills that are imposed upon one's self? If so, would that be a limited free will? In the case of Joseph, God's ultimate will was done, but could that will have be done in another way if the brothers of Joseph wouldn't have sold him? God has an ultimate will that will be done, but is there more than one path to that will? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what you posted, I'm just posing the questions that came to my mind when reading your post.

 

[smaller]

What exactly is free will?

That's part of the fallacy of terming a will 'free.' What is 'free?'

I believe God delivered a great conundrum on this matter to Adam when He said you may eat freely 'but.'

Free and but are not coexisting terms. That form of 'free' comes with a restriction of but.

The subject then turns to Law. That first law, 'do not eat' was a restriction of freedom. To put it more simply, in the U.S. for example we claim we are free, but we are not 'free' to be lawbreakers. Law breaking carries various penalties.

So, we then say, well, obviously one can choose to break the law. We tend to 'externalize' lawlessness into 'actions.' But, scripturally speaking, lawlessness exists first and foremost within us, as in mind or in will. And then we bring in the scriptural presentations of what lawlessness is, and that is 'an internal matter.'

Sin is lawlessness. Evil is within in minds.

Genesis 6:5
And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

That is quite a statement about the 'conditions' of mankinds will, is it not? Every imagination of the thoughts of our (not the other guys, ours) was/is only evil continually. Does evil then imply freedom?

Were we 'free' one might think we could be 'free' from evil by the exercise of will, but that is not the case whatsoever. No mans will other than God Himself has willed himself free from evil. Any who 'externalize' this into evil actions are missing the point entirely. Evil exists within, that is, within the will of the man, whether it is externalized or not. Evil or sin is a progression from thought to word and ultimately to deed, but it is evil will and intent from the start, which is 'in the will' or the heart/mind of mankind. It is there that evil is, and yes, that evil exists in believers as well as unbelievers. Any who say their 'internal evil' is justified by Christ is a liar. God has not 'authorized' evil to be okey dokey and no problemO in anyone.

Yet, it, evil, exits and we cannot say we don't have it, period. That is the scriptural presentation of the present conditions of mankind all...read...all. And it is a legitimate observable universal fact. Again, anyone who says they do not have evil thoughts, scripturally speaking, is just a common liar.

So, we actually have claimants to some derived form of free will claiming that they have none if it is not externalized by 'choice.' And that again is a simple lie by a common liar. Everyone has evil thoughts. Our thoughts are not perfect and they can not be, because of one simple fact. We are not God, and we are not Perfect.

The will of man therefore logically and factually shows these facts, accepted or not, these are just facts.

A. We are not God, and therefore not Perfect
B. We all have evil within us
C. The entire effort and exercise of the supposed 'free' will can 'never' exert itself to state of 'not having evil thoughts.'

Therefore, the will of man is not free from evil, nor can it extract itself from that fact. In order to do so, one would, in essence have to be Perfect. Any other claimant to Perfection is a usurper of God, not to mention delusional in mind.

Matthew 15:19
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

In the above (and similar statements of God) we see then that murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness and blasphemies are in fact evil and factually originate within, whether 'externalized' or not. Some believers do not consider their adulteries in mind to be evil, and they casually excuse that evil within themselves because they did not 'externalize' their sin. That is not the case. That sin was sin from the moment it conceived itself 'in mind.' Those who claim they do not sin in thought are again, simply delusional. The moment that thought came into mind, the sin, the evil, has been committed ' in mind.

All the will of man can not free itself from this dilemma. The 'will' to do so would require ones self to be Perfect and only God is Perfect. We can not even conceive of that state of mind.

What is that type of free will, that Will that God Has? I don't even know, nor do I care to try to take His Seat. To do so is delusional.

The will of man is not therefore 'free' of that fact of evil thoughts. Is an 'evil will' then a 'free will?' I can not say that is the case whatsoever. The mind/will of man is obviously subservient to evil and can not, is not free to extract itself from that fact.

These logical exercises become progressively interesting on many fronts.

Does it necessarily have to be equated with being able to make a decision alone?

Anyone who says that they can exercise their own supposed 'free' will to eradicate evil thoughts is, scripturally speaking, a liar.

Ultimately this question of free then is, what is free? Obviously we can not free ourselves from having 'evil thoughts.' I certainly can't. Can you? Can anyone? Those who make such claims are quite delusional. But I expect to hear from some claimants.

or could free will simply be the ability to make a decision based on the 2 wills that are imposed upon one's self? If so, would that be a limited free will? In the case of Joseph, God's ultimate will was done, but could that will have be done in another way if the brothers of Joseph wouldn't have sold him? God has an ultimate will that will be done, but is there more than one path to that will? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what you posted, I'm just posing the questions that came to my mind when reading your post.

My overall observations remain. We can not logically rule out the will of the devil or the Will of God from any persons mind.

What I find to be the case is that many believers will acknowledge the insertion of evil thoughts by the tempter who is not them into their minds, but they still insist that their mind is free. That is just totally illogical. They obviously can not stop that 'mind intrusion' by an exercise of their own will against the will of the tempter. This logically places the tempter 'in' their mind/will and they have no choice to will or to 'stop that' intrusion.

The mind/will of man does not stand alone and no scripture presents that to be the case.

s

 

[yoamocuy]

That's part of the fallacy of terming a will 'free.' What is 'free?'

I believe God delivered a great conundrum on this matter to Adam when He said you may eat freely 'but.'

Free and but are not coexisting terms. That form of 'free' comes with a restriction of but.

The subject then turns to Law. That first law, 'do not eat' was a restriction of freedom. To put it more simply, in the U.S. for example we claim we are free, but we are not 'free' to be lawbreakers. Law breaking carries various penalties.

So, we then say, well, obviously one can choose to break the law. We tend to 'externalize' lawlessness into 'actions.' But, scripturally speaking, lawlessness exists first and foremost within us, as in mind or in will. And then we bring in the scriptural presentations of what lawlessness is, and that is 'an internal matter.'

Sin is lawlessness. Evil is within in minds.

Genesis 6:5
And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

That is quite a statement about the 'conditions' of mankinds will, is it not? Every imagination of the thoughts of our (not the other guys, ours) was/is only evil continually. Does evil then imply freedom?

Were we 'free' one might think we could be 'free' from evil by the exercise of will, but that is not the case whatsoever. No mans will other than God Himself has willed himself free from evil. Any who 'externalize' this into evil actions are missing the point entirely. Evil exists within, that is, within the will of the man, whether it is externalized or not. Evil or sin is a progression from thought to word and ultimately to deed, but it is evil will and intent from the start, which is 'in the will' or the heart/mind of mankind. It is there that evil is, and yes, that evil exists in believers as well as unbelievers. Any who say their 'internal evil' is justified by Christ is a liar. God has not 'authorized' evil to be okey dokey and no problemO in anyone.

Yet, it, evil, exits and we cannot say we don't have it, period. That is the scriptural presentation of the present conditions of mankind all...read...all. And it is a legitimate observable universal fact. Again, anyone who says they do not have evil thoughts, scripturally speaking, is just a common liar.

So, we actually have claimants to some derived form of free will claiming that they have none if it is not externalized by 'choice.' And that again is a simple lie by a common liar. Everyone has evil thoughts. Our thoughts are not perfect and they can not be, because of one simple fact. We are not God, and we are not Perfect.

The will of man therefore logically and factually shows these facts, accepted or not, these are just facts.

A. We are not God, and therefore not Perfect
B. We all have evil within us
C. The entire effort and exercise of the supposed 'free' will can 'never' exert itself to state of 'not having evil thoughts.'

Therefore, the will of man is not free from evil, nor can it extract itself from that fact. In order to do so, one would, in essence have to be Perfect. Any other claimant to Perfection is a usurper of God, not to mention delusional in mind.

Matthew 15:19
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

In the above (and similar statements of God) we see then that murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness and blasphemies are in fact evil and factually originate within, whether 'externalized' or not. Some believers do not consider their adulteries in mind to be evil, and they casually excuse that evil within themselves because they did not 'externalize' their sin. That is not the case. That sin was sin from the moment it conceived itself 'in mind.' Those who claim they do not sin in thought are again, simply delusional. The moment that thought came into mind, the sin, the evil, has been committed ' in mind.

All the will of man can not free itself from this dilemma. The 'will' to do so would require ones self to be Perfect and only God is Perfect. We can not even conceive of that state of mind.

What is that type of free will, that Will that God Has? I don't even know, nor do I care to try to take His Seat. To do so is delusional.

The will of man is not therefore 'free' of that fact of evil thoughts. Is an 'evil will' then a 'free will?' I can not say that is the case whatsoever. The mind/will of man is obviously subservient to evil and can not, is not free to extract itself from that fact.

These logical exercises become progressively interesting on many fronts.

Anyone who says that they can exercise their own supposed 'free' will to eradicate evil thoughts is, scripturally speaking, a liar.

Ultimately this question of free then is, what is free? Obviously we can not free ourselves from having 'evil thoughts.' I certainly can't. Can you? Can anyone? Those who make such claims are quite delusional. But I expect to hear from some claimants.

My overall observations remain. We can not logically rule out the will of the devil or the Will of God from any persons mind.

What I find to be the case is that many believers will acknowledge the insertion of evil thoughts by the tempter who is not them into their minds, but they still insist that their mind is free. That is just totally illogical. They obviously can not stop that 'mind intrusion' by an exercise of their own will against the will of the tempter. This logically places the tempter 'in' their mind/will and they have no choice to will or to 'stop that' intrusion.

The mind/will of man does not stand alone and no scripture presents that to be the case.

s

I agree that our mind is not free from sin and that adulterous thoughts are still sin. As a result we are not free from sin, but isn't will the ability to choose one's own actions rather than thoughts? In other words, are mind and will the same thing? If I have the thought to cheat on a test, I still have the ability to act out that evil thought or not. In that sense there is freedom to make a choice, even though I may not be free from the thought. In light of that I will once again pose the question, is there limited free will?

 

[smaller]

I agree that our mind is not free from sin and that adulterous thoughts are still sin. As a result we are not free from sin, but isn't will the ability to choose one's own actions rather than thoughts?

The point that is being observed is that whether the sin is in thought, word or deed it is all sin regardless of the actions showing up on the outside of the cup, so to speak. Jesus pointed this fact out very succinctly to the Pharisees who suffered from a similar viewpoint:

Matthew 23:25
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

Jesus decries woe unto such a mind that says 'the outside of my cup is clean' or 'my decision making process shows me not sinning (where you can see it.')

Why? Because it is 'not true.' The fact is that sin, unseen, remains a sin 'in thought' regardless of the external action of same.

In other words, are mind and will the same thing? If I have the thought to cheat on a test, I still have the ability to act out that evil thought or not.

The implication you bring is that even if you 'commit' evil in mind, it is not evil because you chose not to 'act' on it. That is a fallacy. Evil is sin. Sin is sin even in 'mind' regardless of the choice of action being taken externally. Thinking of sin is also an 'action' of sin or evil being exercised in and the will. I can logically maintain that 'if' for example, Satan inserts a tempting thought, that that temptation thought is an active will of Satan 'in the will of man' as an evil ingredient even if not 'externalized.'

Jesus shows us how a 'sin' can be committed in a man, and that sin not being of the mans will whatsoever, which is most fascinating (to me anyway, some may call it morbid...;)

Mark 4:15
And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

Matthew 13:19
When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

Luke 8:12
Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

Here we have an upfront seat on the 'inside scoop' so to speak. We see the entrance of Satan into the mind or the will of the person being entered, them not knowing or even aware of such entrance, and the THEFT of WORD transpiring (yes, theft is a sin) and all of that action taking place in a person but not by the person...dig?

It simply is not logical to say that such pawns are free. They didn't even know what hit 'em.'

Yet, nearly every believer who reads the above statements 'normally' will hear a 'little voice' in their heads that says, 'well this doesn't happen to me because I'm a 'christian.' That thought my friend is from an entity that is not you. Why do I say that? Because we all have had this type of theft/sin happen in us because Jesus said so. Outside of God Himself in the flesh, no man has ever picked up the Bible, read the Words of God and understood it fully and perfectly the first time through it, meaning that we all understand only 'in part' and not 'in full.' Understanding 'in part' or not understanding whatsoever is an action described in Matt. 13 above, and is an action connected with the devil operating in that persons mind or will.

In that sense there is freedom to make a choice, even though I may not be free from the thought. In light of that I will once again pose the question, is there limited free will?

Linking the subject matter to external actions is really a far cry from getting into understanding the will. Factually speaking there are 3 wills provably working in all people. Gods, the devils, and man.

The fact that other entities occupied mankind and are shown throughout the text, particularly in the Gospels, should instantly say to any casual reader that mankind is simply not alone in these matters. There are devils, they have thoughts and actions, and they unquestionably operate in various forms 'in man.'

That's the bottom line. Once that is established as a fact in anyones mind, the question of freewill is quite illogical.

Another point to this matter is that in any measure of free, we obviously are not 'as' free as Gods Mind type of freedom, so in any definition, that Free Will must logically be held up as an example of True Freedom in the absolute sense. Speaking logically again, our measure will be a 'less free' than 'that free' by any comparison.

So how 'free' is a 'less than that free' free will? Obviously not 'that free.'

s

 

[Former Christian]

Webers_Home

LOL Gotcha. We all secretly want our own private little utopia, thanks to the flesh. The one where even Jesus, the "other" perfect man, wouldn't be welcome.

Thank God in our spirit a different dream lives. One where we are being conformed to that one and only perfect man, and we are very welcome in his real utopia.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Ivdavid

You said, “True - when you equate authority with power/control. You need to simultaneously concede that God has indeed given some people charge over us - ie they have been given authority by God where authority implies responsibility over us. The problem here is in discerning who is who. I'd say that those who don't lord over others are possible caretakers and governors while those who try to authoritatively usurp power/control for themselves are not ordained by God.â€

If you had said this in any other way I would have thought that you are a Catholic. As it is, you answered like a Protestant who believes in the authority of the elders. I don’t (1 Per 5:1-5). In verse four, Jesus is not referred to as chief Lord, but as the chief shepherd. The two words have two distinctly different meanings.


“Originally Posted by Former Christian
...this gives the interpreter more authority than that which is interpreted or the Bible.

Sad, but true in most cases.â€

Sad, but true in all cases.


You said, “Now I have stated the above to say that I agree with all of the chief points you have raised.â€

Really?


“Originally Posted by Former Christian


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.


I honestly don't know how you meant this - but try and see how it came across to me. The way I see it - you have "interpreted" the Bible to be the sole authority in knowing God and that interpretation has taken on sufficient "authority" in your mind - enough to make a "distinction" between the Bible and the 'Christianity' out there - and this distinction is the basis for your "division" from the mainstream practice as a "distinct denomination", namely 'Former Christian'.â€

Since I too am practicing interpretation, then I must instruct you in the ways of Former Christian (in anglicized Chinese script) interpretation, grasshopper.

Your are saying that I’m practicing a form of private interpretation. And I have thus created a new division, the Former Christian denomination. This is exactly what the Catholics have been trying to get the Protestants to see for almost five hundred years. That Protestantism is based on private interpretation, and the evidence is in its proclivity toward division.

If you’re going to go with mainstream, then that would be Catholicism in the West, Orthodoxy in the East. Protestantism didn’t even exist prior to the sixteenth century, and that leaves six more centuries of “mainstream Christianity†divided into East and West, and a millennium of “mainstream Christianity†prior to that. Consider these things in light of what you said above.


You said, “Now please note, I am not against anything you said.â€

Really? I must have missed that nuance.

More to follow

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Ivdavid

You added, “I have already stated that I concur with your beliefs on sola Scriptura and the need to avoid exerting power/control. I'm just stating that this is the way it is. When led by God, it turns out right - when led by the flesh, it turns out to be the flawed version out there. This is what happens when people differ in their beliefs - and only God is sufficient to make us of one mind.â€

And therein lies your biggest misunderstanding of what I’m saying. I am no more a Protestant than I am a Catholic. I already said somewhere that I don’t believe in Justification by faith alone.

So, the first thing that must be dealt with is why I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura. In order to understand that, you have to also understand that a part of the Protestant understanding of Sola Scriptura is the practice of interpretation. Why do I say that? Luther and Calvin, if they weren’t practicing interpretation would not have been the basis for two different denominations, Lutherans and Reformed. The reason that Protestantism exists in the form that it does, diversity in doctrine, is because part of the Protestant idea of Sola Scriptura is the practice of interpretation. And I don’t believe that the Bible can be accurately understood through the practice of interpretation.

I don’t believe that the Bible alone is our authority. The Bible is merely a written document with no authority of its own. It receives its authority from its association with God and with Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. I believe that God is the source of the Bible, not the Church (one of many Catholic authoritative doctrines that I disagree with and prevents me from being Catholic). I believe that the only legitimate interpreter of the Bible is the one teacher that has true authority to interpret the Bible, Jesus Christ. But Jesus is in heaven at the right hand of the Father. That is why Catholics believe that the Pope is the Vicar or representative of Christ on earth. And by their practice, the Protestants believe that their various leaders, in a practical sense, are Vicars or representatives of Christ on the earth. They, of course, can’t admit to such a thing without giving credence to Catholicism. I don’t believe that there is any need for a Vicar of Christ because I believe that Jesus Christ is present through the Holy Spirit (Rev chaps. 1-3).

Protestantism has made the same kind of mistake that Catholicism has made. Catholicism believes that the elements (bread and wine) of the Lord’s Table are literally, and this is important, and physically changed into the body and blood of Christ. In fact, they believe that the whole Christ is present in the elements. Thus they give reverence to, more than that, they worship, the wafer, the bread, because they believe that Christ is literally there. Protestantism has done the same thing. Only in the case of Protestantism, it is the Bible as the Word of God that is worshipped. And don’t bother to ask them, because they would never admit to such a thing. Simple reverence maybe, but certainly not worship.

Did the Protestants get this idea on their own? Not at all. You have to remember from whence Protestantism originated. It originated out of the Western Church as it existed in the sixteenth century. At that time, they had a practice of elevating the Gospels before the Gospels were read during the Mass. It is still done today in Catholicism. It is a Tradition that goes back a long way because it is also done in the Orthodox Church. So it is a common practice that goes back at least to the time of the East/West split in the eleventh century. Why do they do this? Because Christ is mentioned in the Gospels? No. It is because they believe that Christ is present in a mystical way in the Gospels through the Holy Spirit. They are worshipping the Christ who is present as teacher in the Gospels. This equating of the Gospels with Christ has never left Protestantism. Except in Protestantism, the worship extends to the whole Bible. Why do you think that in Protestant Worship services, the sermon is the prominent aspect of the service? Just to teach the Bible? How is teaching the Bible that is the bulk of a Service Worship to God? The most that can be said is that following the doctrines of the Apostles is part of a Service that is Worship to God. There is also the Lord’s Table, there is Spiritual sharing (or as it is understood today, fellowship), and there is prayer to God in the sense of adoration (Acts 2:42, 1Pet 2:1-10).

The Bible is called the Word of God, just as Christ is called the Word of God in the New Testament. Protestantism worships the Bible as if it is the person of Christ himself. And thus they feel a need to understand the Bible as clearly as possible because understanding the Bible is understanding Christ. Are they wrong in this? Yes and no. Yes, because Jesus uses the Bible to reveal the true nature of reality and himself in relation to that reality. No, because they try to understand the Bible through the practice of interpretation.

So, the second thing that must be dealt with is the practice of interpretation. Protestants interpret the content of the Bible and come up with different doctrines that must be believed, i.e., are authoritative; and these doctrines become the distinctive doctrines of denominations, because the doctrines produced through the practice of interpretation are different. And in the last century two new ways to practice interpretation has arisen. Due to the worship of the Bible, the Bible must be clear in what it says. So interpretive translation has become popular, resulting in the multitude of English translations available today. Do they all say the same thing? Some Christians think so and choose a Bible that they can understand the easiest. Some pick a Bible they think is closest to what the original is saying. The rest don’t concern themselves with such matters, so they don’t care which Bible they read. And with the discovery of some very ancient copies, fragments mostly, of the New Testament, a new science of compiling the “true†text has also become popular. And even this has caused a controversy that is denominational in nature, between those who believe that the Byzantine text is more accurate (KJV only adherents) and those who believe that the Alexandrian text is more accurate (just about everybody else). The translators of most of the modern translations are of the latter persuasion.

The practice of interpretation is the common way to understand the Bible in all of Christianity. The major differences in understanding is due to the various theories of interpretation that is considered the proper way to interpret the Bible. That is easier to see when Catholicism and Evangelical Protestantism is contrasted. But it is not so clear when two different Protestant denominations are being contrasted, because they supposedly are operating under the same premise, Sola Scriptura. The divisions should make it obvious that they are not.

Now, what you have said, clearly more than implies that the position that I have taken in regard to Christianity is just due to my own practice of interpretation. A valid assumption from the perspective that everyone is practicing interpretation. But I have to respond by showing the implications of that, if it is true. The most obvious implication is that the Bible can only be understood through interpretation. Which in turn implies the necessity of an authoritative interpreter. Which in turn implies that we should all be Catholics, and Protestantism is existing under false pretenses. And that , of course, would apply to me as well.

What, don’t like that conclusion? OK then, how about this. Through the practice of interpretation, the Lordship of Jesus Christ has been effectively usurped, indeed abrogated and nullified, in Christianity. Biblical interpretation is human thinking exercised in relation to the Bible, as if it were a book written by men and men alone. The practice of interpretation is totally a human practice in relation to writings and life in general. In a practical sense, there is no need for Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit to help us to understand the Bible because either corporately (Catholicism) or individually (Protestantism) how one understands the Bible is totally up to the community or the individual. And there is no need for God as the source of the Bible. Which is a strong reason to believe that God doesn’t exist and that the Bible is just the creation of men who’s purpose was to deceive for reasons of power - or - they deceived themselves through misinterpretation of events and actually believed what they wrote. Now, it may be due to a personal need or bias, but I choose to believe that understanding the Bible through the practice of interpretation is not legitimate because it only produces a belief in a reality that is out of ones own imagination.

So, is what I currently believe the result of a personal interpretation? Quite possible. But it is my hope, indeed my belief, that it is not. Because if it is, my basis for believing in what I believe at present is gone. And what I believe about the content of the Bible is the only reason I have left to believe in the existence of God. My belief in Christianity is gone for reasons I have already elucidated.

More to follow.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Ivdavid

You said, “(concerning understanding the Bible in our own words) For what it's worth, that's not the way it works. We use different words to say different things. It may amount to the same particular end result but perhaps the emphasis would be different. The message would be different. It's not the same at all.â€

Precisely. That’s why it’s important to have an English translation of the Bible that accurately conveys what the Biblical writers actually said. So that we don’t have to try to understand the Bible according to our own interpretation. And it is also why, if one knows the Greek or Hebrew behind the English translations, it is important that the languages are correctly understood. That is why, understanding something of the Greek myself, I think that translating the Greek prepositions as if they are all basically synonymous, as English translations from the KJV to the present do, is just an example of interpretive translation, and thus not accurate translating procedure.


“Originally Posted by Former Christian
Has Christianity become so engrossed with semantics that they can no longer understand one another?

Semantics is not the issue here - the underlying beliefs are. We could agree upon the same set of words with the words meaning different things thereby constituting different beliefs in each of us. A case in point - what do we mean by "believing in Christ"? My own understanding of these exact words has changed from before I became a believer to after that. Have the words changed - No. Has my understanding of it changed - yes. So, what does believing in Christ actually mean? You'd surely agree that this being the crux of the Bible, adherents to the Bible have to be united on this - eventually at least.â€

Semantics means, according to the Oxford Dictionary, “the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.†I agree that semantics is not the issue, which is why what I said is in the form of a question. But your example shows that you didn’t understand the meaning of semantics when you wrote what you did above. Semantics has to do with the meaning of words. What we believe has to do with the meaning assigned to words. So if your understanding has changed it is not due to the meaning of words. Rather, it is due to your believing in what the words say, which you did not believe before.

Thus semantics is not the issue. The practice of interpretation is the issue. If what we are believing in is the result of our own interpretations of the Bible, then what we are believing in is nothing really. Because the interpretations mean something different than what the words actually say. And as I said before, interpretations are out of the imaginations of man. Again, Protestantism is the best example that this is true, as seen in their doctrinal diversity.

Being united “eventually†is an interesting way of putting it. Do we have to wait until we are all with Christ in the heavens to be one? That would pretty much show that our faith is in the wrong thing because it has no practical application to our present lives. Why? What Jesus said in John 17 and what Paul said in Ephesians 4. And Paul didn’t say to achieve the unity of the Spirit eventually. He said to keep the unity of the Spirit that should already exist.

FC

 

[yoamocuy]

The point that is being observed is that whether the sin is in thought, word or deed it is all sin regardless of the actions showing up on the outside of the cup, so to speak. Jesus pointed this fact out very succinctly to the Pharisees who suffered from a similar viewpoint:

Matthew 23:25
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

Jesus decries woe unto such a mind that says 'the outside of my cup is clean' or 'my decision making process shows me not sinning (where you can see it.')

Why? Because it is 'not true.' The fact is that sin, unseen, remains a sin 'in thought' regardless of the external action of same.s

Jesus was not addressing the thoughts that the pharisees were having in this passage, he was addressing their motives. That is apparent when Jesus describes how they would fast and then make themselves look pale so that everyone would know they were fasting. They weren't fasting or following the Law for the right reasons, they were simply doing so for personal recognition. Everything they did appeared to be right because they were following the Law, but because their hearts were not right their actions did not matter. You may argue that we cannot control our hearts or motives but we can. If I tithe a certain amount but then later make some comment about how much I tithed, then it is clear that my heart was not right in my tithe. If I tithe discretely, then I am tithing for the right reasons.

The implication you bring is that even if you 'commit' evil in mind, it is not evil because you chose not to 'act' on it. That is a fallacy. Evil is sin. Sin is sin even in 'mind' regardless of the choice of action being taken externally. Thinking of sin is also an 'action' of sin or evil being exercised in and the will. I can logically maintain that 'if' for example, Satan inserts a tempting thought, that that temptation thought is an active will of Satan 'in the will of man' as an evil ingredient even if not 'externalized.' s

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

Jesus shows us how a 'sin' can be committed in a man, and that sin not being of the mans will whatsoever, which is most fascinating (to me anyway, some may call it morbid...;)

Mark 4:15
And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

Matthew 13:19
When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

Luke 8:12
Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

Here we have an upfront seat on the 'inside scoop' so to speak. We see the entrance of Satan into the mind or the will of the person being entered, them not knowing or even aware of such entrance, and the THEFT of WORD transpiring (yes, theft is a sin) and all of that action taking place in a person but not by the person...dig?

It simply is not logical to say that such pawns are free. They didn't even know what hit 'em.'

Yet, nearly every believer who reads the above statements 'normally' will hear a 'little voice' in their heads that says, 'well this doesn't happen to me because I'm a 'christian.' That thought my friend is from an entity that is not you. Why do I say that? Because we all have had this type of theft/sin happen in us because Jesus said so. Outside of God Himself in the flesh, no man has ever picked up the Bible, read the Words of God and understood it fully and perfectly the first time through it, meaning that we all understand only 'in part' and not 'in full.' Understanding 'in part' or not understanding whatsoever is an action described in Matt. 13 above, and is an action connected with the devil operating in that persons mind or will.s

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

Linking the subject matter to external actions is really a far cry from getting into understanding the will. Factually speaking there are 3 wills provably working in all people. Gods, the devils, and man.

The fact that other entities occupied mankind and are shown throughout the text, particularly in the Gospels, should instantly say to any casual reader that mankind is simply not alone in these matters. There are devils, they have thoughts and actions, and they unquestionably operate in various forms 'in man.'

That's the bottom line. Once that is established as a fact in anyones mind, the question of freewill is quite illogical.

Another point to this matter is that in any measure of free, we obviously are not 'as' free as Gods Mind type of freedom, so in any definition, that Free Will must logically be held up as an example of True Freedom in the absolute sense. Speaking logically again, our measure will be a 'less free' than 'that free' by any comparison.

So how 'free' is a 'less than that free' free will? Obviously not 'that free.'

s

I don't see how linking free will to an external action is a far cry at all. If anything it is a far cry not to. If you look up will in any dictionary it is going to state that is an action rather than a thought. If we have entertain adulterous thoughts that is a sin. If we act on adulterous thoughts is that not another sin? Just because we have an evil thought does not mean that we can then act on that thought without any further consequence because we have already had the thought. We are told that we will not be tempted beyond what we can bear, which implies that we have the option to give in to a temptation or to stand against it. Even Jesus was tempted, thus He was not alone in these matters either, yet He resisted the temptations.

 

[Former Christian]

Yoamocuy (and smaller)

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

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

You said, “If you look up will in any dictionary it is going to state that is an action rather than a thought.”

That isn’t quite true. It is more something that is between the thought and the action. My Oxford Dictionary defines will in this way, “the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action” or “control deliberately exerted to do something or to restrain one's own impulses”. These definitions assume that we have free will to decide to act or not act on a thought and to control our own impulses. So to say that will is an action is not accurate, but to say that will is not the thought itself is accurate. And for those who say we have no free will, this definition assumes that we do have free will, at least in some sense and in relation to certain things.

Incidentally, being merely curious, your moniker, Yoamocuy, sounds like an American Indian word or name. Is this intentional or does the moniker have a meaning unrelated to its appearance?

FC

 

[Eventide]

Here's the bottom line imo..

Were you or were you not able to hear the gospel of God concerning His Son and then believe it or reject it..?

People break the LAW all the time.. do people actually think that they have no choice in the matter or that some other force is making them do it ?

 

[jasoncran]

that eventide for the calvinist begs the question are men born to sin as in they have to break the laws of God or rather is it that they are unable to change that tendency to break the law.

morality implies a willful choice to do good or evil. not whether one can actually do such things. i can force a child to bend to my will but the question of the day is he innocent of the crimes i force him to do?

satan does do that to men but the lord did condemn adam and eve for listening to the devil as they had a choice. we may not have the strenght to stop sinning but we have the means and acess to him who can give us the stregth to stop. that is where we do have freewill we can deny that option and die in sin.

 

[Eventide]

that eventide for the calvinist begs the question are men born to sin as in they have to break the laws of God or rather is it that they are unable to change that tendency to break the law.

morality implies a willful choice to do good or evil. not whether one can actually do such things. i can force a child to bend to my will but the question of the day is he innocent of the crimes i force him to do?

satan does do that to men but the lord did condemn adam and eve for listening to the devil as they had a choice. we may not have the strenght to stop sinning but we have the means and acess to him who can give us the stregth to stop. that is where we do have freewill we can deny that option and die in sin.

I couldn't agree more Jason.. AMEN.