FREE WILL

[Elijah674]

Paul's main 'removeable' theme about law was about Moses law's that were finished when Christ died. Which were added because of sin. Gal. 3:19

Never were or could the Ten Commandments be changed or FINISHED! (as some falsely teach!)

It is OK to kill now they say, huh? Even then they will quote Rom. 13. When Caesar says so, we must comply, they say! 666

And free will? It will be their FATAL DECISION to make. Acts 4:17-19 + Acts 5:27-32.

 

[ivdavid]

Former Christian,

“Former Christâ€
Freudian slip?
Guess I didn't drag select the full name when I copied it.

FC - "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."
Thank you.


ivdavid - "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."
FC - "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."

A case of Same-action-different-intents.
I also said - "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."
And to do this, I ask what you believe. You state your belief. I then want to know all the accompanying presuppositions of this belief. For this, I present the usual opposing arguments against this belief to see how you have reconciled them. Therein I gather further understanding of your entire system of beliefs through your answers to these arguments.
This is still a pursuit of understanding your perspective in order to discern the foundational beliefs we differ upon - but you think I'm trying to prove against your beliefs - which I'm not.


FC - "....the transformation is Spiritual, through the Spirit of God.... Is what I just said an interpretation?"
Nope. I've never denied this. I just am unsure of your intent in mentioning this in that context.

ivdavid - "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.........If you're not interested in my sharing my beliefs, I could always stop."
FC - " Why are you upset if I point out the obvious contrast?"
Don't worry - I'm not upset in the least. I stated all the above so that one may know my intent in sharing my beliefs. I offered to stop sharing lest one might think that I intended to impose on anyone or authoritatively use my beliefs to prove somebody else's beliefs to be wrong - which unfortunately I've failed at preventing anyway. Well, since you don't have any objections and I find your responses to my beliefs too to be quite informative of your perspective, we could move along.


FC - "As far as experience is concerned,....It could be, of course, that one of us has interpreted his experience wrongly."
True. It could be, also, that one of us has not had that experience yet.

FC - "Nevertheless, I don’t see how God choosing some over others to be saved is to the glory of God."
A lot to discuss on this - but in short, God's election deprives the flesh of any glory and hence salvation is unto All glory to God alone.

FC - "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?"
The condemned will see the glory of God's wrath and righteous judgement towards them while the saved will see the glory of God's compassion, grace and mercy towards them along with His wrath and righteousness in judging the condemned.



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."
ivdavid - "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€
FC - "Yes, your right. It could be taken that way. But it wasn’t my intent."

Well, regarding interpretation, this is where you throw me off track in my attempt to understand what you mean by interpretation. When you conclude that God is a respecter of persons if He chooses only some to be saved, and then defend such a conclusion as non-interpretative common sense - I am unsure over how I'm to respond. To me, your conclusion is false, thereby making this conclusion just another human interpretation - an honest one in that it could be due to some blind spots on this and not out of conscious interpretation - but you insist on being certain of its truth in a non-interpretative way. This inclusion of 'common sense' is what seems to defeat an otherwise perfect model. Let's resolve this by simply discussing the issue at hand.

I enquired on your beliefs on this before, I'll do it again here now -

a) What, according to you, is the difference between partiality and sovereignty?
b) And is God a respecter of persons when He chooses Isaac as the child of promise and not Ishmael - is God a respecter of persons when He chooses Jacob over Esau?

Contd...

 

[ivdavid]

Former Christian,

Regarding righteousness -
FC - "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?"

You'll have to refer to post#390 for this. We refer to righteous acts in 2 ways -
1. based on whether a righteous deed was done for the receiver.
2. based on whether a righteous deed was done by the doer.

When we say that the poor were given alms - a righteous deed was done for the receiver[Case 1]. This does not however imply that a righteous deed was done by the doer[Case 2]. If his intent is wrong in the sight of God, he has done an unrighteous deed.

FC - "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?"

Yes, it is still a righteous act w.r.t. the receiver but not necessarily w.r.t the doer.

FC - "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?"
I'd refer to Matt 6:1-4 . Were they not giving alms - isn't giving alms a good deed - why then were they chastised - was their action being chastised or was their intent being chastised?

Similarly, is praying wrong? What does Matt 6:5-6 deal with - the act of praying or the intent of praying?


FC - "If I thought that everyone was totally depraved, I would be a nervous wreck and very paranoid."
Let's see - from what you've written - you'd say that an unbeliever who has given alms to the poor is not totally depraved because he has performed a righteous deed[case 1]. I'd say he's totally depraved not because he wasn't able to give alms to the poor, a righteous deed[case 1] - no, he may very successfully do so - but I'd call him so because it would not be considered his righteous deed[case 2] in the sight of God. He would be considered to have performed a righteous deed[case 2] before God only when in any single act of his, he has not broken any of God's commandments. That is the purpose of the law - to reveal sin to us.


FC - "Paul emphasizes that Justification is not by Law."
And when have I said that it is. Are my questions regarding the law being interpreted as this?


FC - "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 is a letter to Jews, Jews who still think that they must keep the Law in order to be Justified."

I don't see this text to be primarily an argument against justification by the law. Note, I don't hold justification by law either - but we can't be making a text say something that it isn't saying though it may be true.

Jas 2:1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
This is the theme and focus of James 2:1-13 - Do not be a respecter of persons.

James 2:8 is the way to ensure we are not partial.

James 2:9 continues - But if we are partial, we have committed sin and are convicted by the law as having transgressed or broken the law.
Note here, it is James who brings up the Law and it's not in the context of justification but in the context of proving that being a respecter of persons is sin. The law's purpose is never to justify us - but to show us what sin is - and to recognize it and its sinfulness - which is what James is doing.

Note also, James continues from the latter part of v.9 into v.10-11 where, contextually, he shows how exactly the law convicts us as transgressors. He seems to be negating the thought that righteousness is discerned by the sum total or the best parts of our obeying God's commandments - on the contrary, he says that transgression[unrighteousness] is discerned by any non-adherence to any commandment of the law. He still is attempting to show that people who are partial are convicted by the law as transgressors and his focus is still on discerning sin.

Applying it to our case, we may imagine a Matthew 6 man giving alms to the poor. And James would chastise him just as Jesus did, saying that glorying before men is hypocrisy and not a righteous act[Matt 6:2]. He'd say that they have committed sin and are convicted of the law as transgressors[Jas 2:9]. He'd negate their claim to a righteous work in giving alms to the poor by saying that even if they kept the whole law and stumbled upon this one point of glorying before men, they are still guilty of transgressing the law in that specific act[Jas 2:10]. He'd substantiate this by stating that God revealed His unchanging will, with His saying one must give alms to the poor AND ALSO His saying one must not glory before men[Jas 2:11a]. And if one does give alms to the poor and yet if he glories before men, he has become a transgressor of the law[Jas 2:11b].

James concludes on this topic of partiality with v.12-13. This v.12 does not stem directly from v.9-11, specifically concerning the law, which he hasn't mentioned in an opposing sense - rather the conclusion stems from the entire preceding 11 verses, being applied in the context of partiality. The law of liberty is rightly referred to as the law of faith - but this isn't about a law of faith vs law of works debate here. James isn't opposing anything but partiality in these first 11 verses. In fact, this issue of partiality itself stems from one of his main concerns, found in Jas 1:22 - he wants people to DO the law - the law of liberty. He reiterates this in Jas 1:25 - and proceeds to deal with some issues where again this may be applied and reminded - precisely in Jas 2:12 w.r.t the issue of partiality.


FC - "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?"
What does 'fully' mean and are you talking of people in the flesh or in the spirit? In an attempt to shorten this, I assume that you intend to make the point that none can perfectly keep God's commandments and hence the conclusion that one cannot be justified by the law. I believe so too - none can perfectly keep the law. I also state that none can ever keep the law in the flesh. My discussion on the law is not to endorse justification by it but to discern sin in us through it - in order to look unto Christ for our entire righteousness, we having none of our own.
Of course, my assumption on what you require may be totally wrong in which case, please do state it yourself.


FC - "Depravity is the same as sin. It isn’t the same for everyone (Rom 5:12-14)."
Depravity does not say that everybody sins the same way - it just says that everybody keeps sinning[transgressing God's Law] in all their acts, in their flesh. If you define depraved as something close to serial-killing sociopaths and the like only, then we're amiss. Depraved people could be the pharisees - who performed the most laudable works in man's sight but were found to be transgressors and hypocrites in the sight of God. I still ask, when denying the flesh any glory only serves the glory of God, what do you find wrong in it?


Contd...

 

[ivdavid]

Former Christian,

FC - "Paul bluntly states that regarding the Law he was blameless."
ivdavid - "This looks like proof-texting - let us not consider proof-texting valid in a discussion.â€
FC - "Ok! Now, that’s as bad as calling Genesis a fairy tale. Your thoughts betray you. Look to yourself before you accuse."

I see you've been offended and I apologize because I could have avoided this redundant reflection. I did not accuse you of proof-texting - I suspected you of it and sought clarification on the issue to confirm or deny my own suspicions. I could have sought such clarification without mentioning my suspicions.

FC - "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."

I am doing exactly what one is expected to do when he comes across Scripture like Matt 5:29-30. I simply cannot say Jesus said what He said and reject any other differing understanding as irrelevant human interpretations. Rather, one is to accept Scripture as it is, only if it does not contradict with any other part of Scripture - and if it does, then it is our understanding that is flawed and we must seek to reconcile all such parts of Scripture. We don't take Matt 5:29-30 literally because of the need to reconcile another part of Scripture - Deut 14:1.

In the same way, I would have accepted Php 3:6 as it is, if not for the need to reconcile other parts of Scripture.
If Paul was truly blameless w.r.t. the law, then according to Lev 18:5, he must be justified by the law - but we know no man is justified by the law - hence my first conflict.
Rom 7:9-11 talks about his failure to keep the law by which he was condemned to die if not for the grace of God through Christ - Paul contrasts his being 'alive' before the commandment 'came' with his 'dying' after it came. He further qualifies in Rom 7:14 and Rom 8:7, that he was carnal and could not keep God's Spiritual Law - this being my second conflict.

There are some more but I think these are the 2 main ones.

The reconciling of all Scripture on this is in recognizing that Paul, in the flesh, could not keep God's Spiritual law at all but was blinded in his mind by the devil and sin in his flesh - and in such blindness, he did think he was keeping the law. He considered himself alive by the law. But when the Spirit convicted him, the commandment came in the Spiritual sense and here he saw how his flesh failed completely. This explains his reliance on the Spirit alone after his regeneration and his loathing of the power of the flesh - for it profited him nothing, rather was a loss to Christ's glory.


FC - "Sense? What sense?"
There is a difference in perspective between the flesh and the spirit - would you agree?

FC - "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."
Yes, I do lack understanding regarding the "capabilities of the soul" because I am not yet aware of such a distinction. According to me, man is born in the flesh and until he is regenerated, he walks by the flesh and all such deeds are unrighteous in the sight of God though they may be laudable in the world's sight or man's sight. When he is regenerated, he is converted from being in the flesh to being in the spirit and now God works out all good things in him, destroying the works of the devil and mortifying the deeds of the flesh through the process of sanctification. Man's soul is his sentience and total conscious personality. Concerning morality, it is passive in terms of generating desires and counsel, but is actively involved in executing the counsel of a desire - therein could be termed the place out of which works are worked.

So, please explain to me with some simple examples if possible, as to what these 'capabilities of the soul' are and contrast them with the 'capabilities of the flesh'.

Php 3:4-6 talks about his achievements in the flesh which he himself holds to be enmity against God[Rom 8:7] - which is why he states that gain for him[his flesh] is loss for Christ[Php 3:7].

FC - "I think that I have certain positive attributes, just as did Paul."
I will not discuss you personally. But what positive attributes did Paul talk of himself? I'm yet to see him speak anything positive of the flesh.

FC - "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."
While comparing a derogatory thing with something commendable, the derogatory thing remains derogatory. While comparing a less commendable thing with something much more commendable, the less commendable thing seems derogatory. Which of these 2 types of comparison are you adopting in seeing life in the flesh w.r.t life in Christ? I take the former type, for reasons I've already stated above.

FC - "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?"
I take it that these things common to us and that which we may excel in are derogatory if they have lead Paul to persecute those in Christ - or did you mean something else? I'm not sure - so please sort it out for me. Thank you.

 

[childeye]

To ivdavid,

I really like what you said about the righteous acts and whether they are done for the receiver or the doer. Here is shown exactly the two different points of view refering to Cain and Abel. For had Cain given the offering for the recepient's sake and not for his own sake, he would have not taken rejection of his offering personally, become jealous, and kill his brother. Because if it was for the recepient's sake, seeing that pleasing the recepient is the true motive, then he would have tried some other offering until he pleased God, and he would welcome the fact that his brother's offering at least was pleasing to God since his own was not. And here we see pride which comes from the knowledge of good and evil I suspect.

Anyway, I appreciated the sentiments you expounded upon and thank God for both you speaking it and I hearing it.

 

[Former Christian]

Ivdavid

“FC - "As far as experience is concerned,....It could be, of course, that one of us has interpreted his experience wrongly."
True. It could be, also, that one of us has not had that experience yet.â€

That’s another possibility.


“FC - "Nevertheless, I don’t see how God choosing some over others to be saved is to the glory of God."
A lot to discuss on this - but in short, God's election deprives the flesh of any glory and hence salvation is unto All glory to God alone.â€

Man has glory, but it is fleeting (Mat 4:8, 1 Pet 1:24). Even God can’t deprive Satan nor man of the glory they have. It exists. Nor does God need to. In the end only the glory of God will be left. As it should be. It is we who choose whether or not to glorify ourselves. Christian Ministries are mostly a glorification of self.


“a) What, according to you, is the difference between partiality and sovereignty?â€

Partiality, “unfair bias in favour of one thing or person compared with another; a particular liking or fondness for something†(Oxford Dictionary).

Sovereignty, “supreme power or authority†(Oxford Dictionary).

God offers a gift to all (Rom 5:12-21). He would be partial if he only gave the gift to those of his own choosing. Since it is we who choose whether or not to accept the gift, God isn’t partial.


“b) And is God a respecter of persons when He chooses Isaac as the child of promise and not Ishmael - is God a respecter of persons when He chooses Jacob over Esau?â€

In Romans 1-8 Paul pointed out that all are condemned in Adam in order that all may be Justified In Christ. Romans 9 ends with, “As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.†(Rom 9:33 KJV) Therein is your answer. Meditate on Rom 9 in that contextual light.


“When we say that the poor were given alms - a righteous deed was done for the receiver[Case 1]. This does not however imply that a righteous deed was done by the doer[Case 2]. If his intent is wrong in the sight of God, he has done an unrighteous deed.â€

Guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that. Intent can only change a righteous act into an unrighteous act if the intent is unrighteous. You apparently believe that all human intent is automatically unrighteous. I disagree. Note Abel and Enoch (Heb 11).


“Similarly, is praying wrong? What does Matt 6:5-6 deal with - the act of praying or the intent of praying?â€

Obviously both. One without the other would be nothing. Like faith alone without works.


“FC - "Paul emphasizes that Justification is not by Law."
And when have I said that it is. Are my questions regarding the law being interpreted as this?â€

That quote of mine alone isn’t accurate. Actually we are Justified by the Law, just not the Law alone. Christ kept the Law and we are Justified in him through his faith (Gal 2:16).


“FC - "Paul bluntly states that regarding the Law he was blameless."
ivdavid - "This looks like proof-texting - let us not consider proof-texting valid in a discussion.â€
FC - "Ok! Now, that’s as bad as calling Genesis a fairy tale. Your thoughts betray you. Look to yourself before you accuse."
I see you've been offended and I apologize because I could have avoided this redundant reflection. I did not accuse you of proof-texting - I suspected you of it and sought clarification on the issue to confirm or deny my own suspicions. I could have sought such clarification without mentioning my suspicions.â€

It is God whom you offend. It is his word. I’m offended because God is offended. For my part, I forgive you. To be forgiven by God you must confess to God, who will just as freely forgive you as I have.

Please be clear. I take every Biblical text at face value. I expect all who are truly in Christ to do likewise. When I quote a verse, I expect people to see what it actually says. Not what it says through the lens of some interpretation. According to the dictionary definition, the practice of interpretation explains a text. A necessary practice if the author is absent or dead. Yet the interpretation explains nothing, as can be seen by the diversity of interpretations. The practice of Biblical interpretation is illegitimate since the author is alive and in front of those who walk by the Spirit. The practice of Biblical interpretation doesn’t explain the text, it changes the meaning of the text. Even when one is trying to reconcile two texts that oppose or contradicts each other in their own minds. If we’re going to go by interpretation, then it doesn’t matter what the text really says, because all we’re sharing are interpretations. And we become like Christian relativists, everybody having an interpretation. In the end we end up alone if we’re honest and self-confident enough to go with our own interpretations.

I no longer make it a practice to quote the Bible, because it’s too often taken as my personal opinion when they understand the text according to their interpretation. You’ll notice that most of the time I respond without any Scripture references at all. I just make statements. I make an exception in your case in hope.

If Protestantism has proven nothing else, it’s that there isn’t any unity through interpretation. If Catholicism has proven nothing else, it’s that anything can be proven through interpretation.

Luther believed that anyone could read the Bible and understand it. He translated the Bible in the vulgar tongue with that in mind. But in the end he became another interpreter Pope. If we’re blind to anything due to the fall, it’s what the Bible is truly saying. And the adherents of Christianity are the blindest of all. I’ve seen Atheists do a better job of understanding the Bible. Too bad they’ve chosen not to believe it. But at least they know what it is they don’t believe. Christians can’t even agree on what it is they do believe. And when the questioning starts, even the basics are understood differently while using the same words.

Proof texting is part and parcel of the practice of interpretation. I will sometimes point out what the uninterpreted Bible says. When that’s taken to mean something else, for whatever reason, I don’t offer anymore Scripture for one reason, and one reason only. It is futile.

Let me give you an example. In the New Testament is the Greek word transliterated ekklesia. It is translated in almost all English translations as “Churchâ€. The Churches in Christianity are institutional, each with their own denominational name. The ekklesia are non-institutional (1 Pet 5:1-11). The only name associated with the ekklesia in the New Testament is the name of the city in which it exists (Rev 1-3) Can you see the difference?

More to follow.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Ivdavid

“I am doing exactly what one is expected to do when he comes across Scripture like Matt 5:29-30. I simply cannot say Jesus said what He said and reject any other differing understanding as irrelevant human interpretations. Rather, one is to accept Scripture as it is, only if it does not contradict with any other part of Scripture - and if it does, then it is our understanding that is flawed and we must seek to reconcile all such parts of Scripture. We don't take Matt 5:29-30 literally because of the need to reconcile another part of Scripture - Deut 14:1.â€

You are doing exactly what Protestantism has trained you to do. “Properly†interpret the Bible according to the authority of a denomination. Protestants are expected to interpret on their own (the old read the Bible for yourself trick), and then to conform to the interpretations of the denomination. Doesn’t matter if your interpretations lead you in a different direction. You are expected to conform. The practice of interpretation leads to a unity that can only be achieved by conforming. Those who don’t conform are subject to closed communion to whatever degree is followed by the denomination.

Catholicism is honest about its practice of interpretation. And Catholics do it better. They just ask the Priest to begin with. They don’t bother with interpreting the Bible themselves. Much simpler. Since the Priests are already trained in the proper interpretation of the Bible according to the Tradition of the Catholic Church. They’re the epitome of interpreters.

I realize that a lot of people have a problem with Matthew 5:29-30. But that doesn’t mean that the answer lies in an interpretation.

The plain understanding is in the context itself, in the preceding verse (v. 28) wherein Jesus is speaking about the heart and mentions the eyes. These two verses continue what was said there. Don’t even have to consult Deuteronomy. To think that Jesus is talking about the physical is to misunderstand him. He’s talking about the inner eyes that see inwardly, the inner hand that does inwardly. He’s talking about denying oneself and taking up his cross daily (Luke 9:23).

It’s like John 6. The Jews didn’t follow Jesus anymore because they thought he was referring to something physical. Clearly he was not, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.†(6:63 KJV). There is so much interpretation concerning this chapter simply because people can’t see what’s actually there. It’s definitely a reference to the Lord’s Table. But not a physical reference (Catholicism), nor no reference at all (Protestantism).

“And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.†(v. 65 KJV) The Calvinists love this verse....out of context. Jesus in context is only referring to the fact that no one can come to Jesus without God first giving him the proper revelation. The time was not yet for any of these to have that revelation.

“Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.†(Vs. 67-69 KJV) Some say that the Apostles’ understood. They did not. Peter’s answer shows that. “to whom shall we goâ€..... And, we “are sureâ€..... They didn’t understand Jesus any better than the rest. But they trusted him. And that made all the difference.


“In the same way, I would have accepted Php 3:6 as it is, if not for the need to reconcile other parts of Scripture.
If Paul was truly blameless w.r.t. the law, then according to Lev 18:5, he must be justified by the law - but we know no man is justified by the law - hence my first conflict.â€

“Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them†(Lev 18:5 KJV) Where does it say that anyone will be Justified by the Law? To do the Law and live in them is much different than being Justified by the Law. We can do the law of our nation and live in them. Certainly doesn’t mean anything other than that. “The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." †(Gal 3:12 NIV) We are to live by faith, not the law alone. The faith of Christ, not our faith alone (Gal 2:16, 20).

Justification for Israel came through their faith in God. The sacrificial system was the focal point for their faith in God. For Israel, like Abraham their Father, they believed God and it was counted to them for righteousness. As Psalms and Hebrews clearly says, the sacrifices didn’t do any thing in themselves. It was faith in God that Justified. As it was with Abel who believed God and gave the right sacrifice, so also it is with us. We believe God and he puts us into Christ wherein we are Justified.


“Rom 7:9-11 talks about his failure to keep the law by which he was condemned to die if not for the grace of God through Christ - Paul contrasts his being 'alive' before the commandment 'came' with his 'dying' after it came. He further qualifies in Rom 7:14 and Rom 8:7, that he was carnal and could not keep God's Spiritual Law - this being my second conflict.â€

Paul couldn’t keep the Law in relation to the context of Romans 1-8, Justification by faith. In Philippians, Paul makes a different argument wherein he contrasts what he had through the flesh, with what he has in Christ. In both cases, he comes to the same conclusion. Life is only in Christ.


“There is a difference in perspective between the flesh and the spirit - would you agree?â€

Yes.


“So, please explain to me with some simple examples if possible, as to what these 'capabilities of the soul' are and contrast them with the 'capabilities of the flesh'.â€

The lust of the flesh. The soul can only lust in relation to the flesh (1 Pet 2:11). Answer me this. Is the lust of the flesh the same as the sexual biological function of the body? And another. What is the difference between the flesh and the flesh?

FC

 

[Jake]

Ivdavid

“I am doing exactly what one is expected to do when he comes across Scripture like Matt 5:29-30. I simply cannot say Jesus said what He said and reject any other differing understanding as irrelevant human interpretations. Rather, one is to accept Scripture as it is, only if it does not contradict with any other part of Scripture - and if it does, then it is our understanding that is flawed and we must seek to reconcile all such parts of Scripture. We don't take Matt 5:29-30 literally because of the need to reconcile another part of Scripture - Deut 14:1.â€

You are doing exactly what Protestantism has trained you to do. “Properly†interpret the Bible according to the authority of a denomination. Protestants are expected to interpret on their own (the old read the Bible for yourself trick), and then to conform to the interpretations of the denomination. Doesn’t matter if your interpretations lead you in a different direction. You are expected to conform. The practice of interpretation leads to a unity that can only be achieved by conforming. Those who don’t conform are subject to closed communion to whatever degree is followed by the denomination.

Catholicism is honest about its practice of interpretation. And Catholics do it better. They just ask the Priest to begin with. They don’t bother with interpreting the Bible themselves. Much simpler. Since the Priests are already trained in the proper interpretation of the Bible according to the Tradition of the Catholic Church. They’re the epitome of interpreters.

I realize that a lot of people have a problem with Matthew 5:29-30. But that doesn’t mean that the answer lies in an interpretation.

The plain understanding is in the context itself, in the preceding verse (v. 28) wherein Jesus is speaking about the heart and mentions the eyes. These two verses continue what was said there. Don’t even have to consult Deuteronomy. To think that Jesus is talking about the physical is to misunderstand him. He’s talking about the inner eyes that see inwardly, the inner hand that does inwardly. He’s talking about denying oneself and taking up his cross daily (Luke 9:23).

It’s like John 6. The Jews didn’t follow Jesus anymore because they thought he was referring to something physical. Clearly he was not, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.†(6:63 KJV). There is so much interpretation concerning this chapter simply because people can’t see what’s actually there. It’s definitely a reference to the Lord’s Table. But not a physical reference (Catholicism), nor no reference at all (Protestantism).

“And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.†(v. 65 KJV) The Calvinists love this verse....out of context. Jesus in context is only referring to the fact that no one can come to Jesus without God first giving him the proper revelation. The time was not yet for any of these to have that revelation.

“Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.†(Vs. 67-69 KJV) Some say that the Apostles’ understood. They did not. Peter’s answer shows that. “to whom shall we goâ€..... And, we “are sureâ€..... They didn’t understand Jesus any better than the rest. But they trusted him. And that made all the difference.


“In the same way, I would have accepted Php 3:6 as it is, if not for the need to reconcile other parts of Scripture.
If Paul was truly blameless w.r.t. the law, then according to Lev 18:5, he must be justified by the law - but we know no man is justified by the law - hence my first conflict.â€

“Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them†(Lev 18:5 KJV) Where does it say that anyone will be Justified by the Law? To do the Law and live in them is much different than being Justified by the Law. We can do the law of our nation and live in them. Certainly doesn’t mean anything other than that. “The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." †(Gal 3:12 NIV) We are to live by faith, not the law alone. The faith of Christ, not our faith alone (Gal 2:16, 20).

Justification for Israel came through their faith in God. The sacrificial system was the focal point for their faith in God. For Israel, like Abraham their Father, they believed God and it was counted to them for righteousness. As Psalms and Hebrews clearly says, the sacrifices didn’t do any thing in themselves. It was faith in God that Justified. As it was with Abel who believed God and gave the right sacrifice, so also it is with us. We believe God and he puts us into Christ wherein we are Justified.


“Rom 7:9-11 talks about his failure to keep the law by which he was condemned to die if not for the grace of God through Christ - Paul contrasts his being 'alive' before the commandment 'came' with his 'dying' after it came. He further qualifies in Rom 7:14 and Rom 8:7, that he was carnal and could not keep God's Spiritual Law - this being my second conflict.â€

Paul couldn’t keep the Law in relation to the context of Romans 1-8, Justification by faith. In Philippians, Paul makes a different argument wherein he contrasts what he had through the flesh, with what he has in Christ. In both cases, he comes to the same conclusion. Life is only in Christ.


“There is a difference in perspective between the flesh and the spirit - would you agree?â€

Yes.


“So, please explain to me with some simple examples if possible, as to what these 'capabilities of the soul' are and contrast them with the 'capabilities of the flesh'.â€

The lust of the flesh. The soul can only lust in relation to the flesh (1 Pet 2:11). Answer me this. Is the lust of the flesh the same as the sexual biological function of the body? And another. What is the difference between the flesh and the flesh?

FC

Nicely put, FC!

The Bible interpets itself!

 

[francisdesales]

Catholicism is honest about its practice of interpretation. And Catholics do it better. They just ask the Priest to begin with. They don’t bother with interpreting the Bible themselves. Much simpler. Since the Priests are already trained in the proper interpretation of the Bible according to the Tradition of the Catholic Church. They’re the epitome of interpreters.

That is not true. While the "typical" lay person certainly would have the opportunity to ask a priest, since he has been trained for years on theology, they are not necessarily "the epitome of interpreters". Most do not deal in professional exegetics. They prepare homilies, so it follows that they do have more opportunity to read a few passages more deeply. However, after Vatican 2, more lay people are picking up commentaries and reading the Sacred Scriptures as part of their spiritual formation. Many Catholic commentaries are available that give good information that is faithful to the Apostolic Tradition.

We do interpret the Bible for ourselves - WITHIN the context of the Church. One of the rules of Bible study, for us, is to maintain the sense of how the Church interprets particular pasages. How does/did the Church, guided by the Spirit of God, read John 6?

But we also realize that there can be a deeper sense that can develop our spiritual growth. Analogy and moral sense that often goes beyond so-called "doctrinal issues". Vatican 2 issued Dei Verbum, the Dogmatic Constitution on Sacred Writ, which stresses the importance of faithful Scripture study.

Just setting the record straight, we do read and interpret Scriptures - but we are careful not to step outside how the Church reads these same passages.

Regards

 

[Former Christian]

Francisdesales

Thanks for the update.

FC

 

[ivdavid]

Former Christian,

FC - "That quote of mine alone isn’t accurate. Actually we are Justified by the Law, just not the Law alone."
FC - "(Lev 18:5 KJV) Where does it say that anyone will be Justified by the Law?"

What I'm to understand from this seems a bit ambiguous - so I'd like to get it clarified here -

1)Either you mean "Where does it say that anyone will be Justified by the Law [alone]" in the second statement - and then you're applying that to Lev 18:5 and are asking "Where in Lev 18:5 does it say that anyone will be Justified by the Law [alone]",
2)Or you mean 'justification by the law' in the first statement as effectively 'justification by faith' wrought by Christ's perfect obedience of the Law.
3)Or something else that hasn't been obvious to me, which you'll have to elaborate on.

I am at this point inclined to believe that you meant case(1) - a total justification of man as the sum of "justification by the law", "justification by our own faith" and "justification by the faith of Christ". Have I understood you correctly?

If I have, then you'd understand Gal 3:11 as "But that no man is justified by the law [alone] in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith."
Is the inclusion of the word 'alone' permissible? Where is the plain understanding that leads to such inclusions?

Besides, Gal 3:10 states that none are justified by the law - itself - and the reason for it is not based on the insufficiency of the justification by law 'alone' but the fact that none are able to keep the law. How do you see this?

Also Gal 4:5, Gal 4:30, Rom 7:3 speak of an end to the idea of justification by the law - not leaving room for additions to it. How do you reconcile these?


FC - "To do the Law and live in them is much different than being Justified by the Law. We can do the law of our nation and live in them. Certainly doesn’t mean anything other than that."

What exactly do you mean by the phrase "live in them"? Do you mean it as some sort of habit formation or a pattern of principle?
Isn't it about the basis of justification - the reason one has life and the other doesn't? This is the righteousness of the law -
Rom 10:5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.
A person who does these commandments shall live --- by his doing these commandments.
It shows that the basis for one to have life is found in his faithfulness in keeping the commandments - that if one keeps the law, then he is deemed righteous and such a righteous one has life - and if one doesn't keep the law, then because of that, he doesn't have life. This is the law of works - where one is gauged merit-worthy based on what he did. But the law of faith removes man as the doer and shows forth the works of God in giving us life. God's grace and mercy through Jesus Christ's sacrifice and the power of the Holy Spirit is what gives us life - and we depend on God's works alone to save us. This is faith - a looking unto God's works instead of our own. This is why God regenerates one and works in him by His Spirit - as opposed to the unregenerated man who has to work by himself, in the flesh.

So, if paul had kept the law, he would have been deemed righteous and he would have life because he had kept the law - but that's what he denies in Rom 7:7-11, he denies that he had kept the law as per the requirements of the Spiritual law. How do you say he's blameless in keeping the law?
The flesh is capable of seeing "Do not murder" as "do not take another's physical life" - the Spirit sees "Do not murder" as "Do not even be angry towards your brother". The flesh can easily think it has kept the commandment while actually not having kept it Spiritually. So the flesh could delude man into thinking he is blameless in this commandment until the commandment comes Spiritually and condemns him to die because of his transgression of the law. That's when he is spiritually awakened to the Spiritual requirements of the law - in which he declares himself to be under the curse, by the law - and admits to not having kept it, thereby looking unto Christ for his righteousness.

FC - "Paul couldn’t keep the Law in relation to the context of Romans 1-8, Justification by faith."
If you have understood what I've said so far, you'd see that this makes no sense to me - why talk of Paul not keeping the law in relation to faith when there is no component of faith in the law? Suppose there are commandments A,B,C under Law1 and commandments X,Y,Z under Law2, would I say that one hasn't kept Law1 w.r.t. not having kept commandment X? Again, I'm dealing with Paul's admission of his not having kept the law w.r.t. the law only and not his not having faith. Besides, doesn't faith arise out of one's inability to keep the law of works? Where is the necessity for faith when one can keep the law?
What do you mean by faith? What are we to believe when we say "believe in Christ"?

Continued...

 

[ivdavid]

Former Christian,

Regarding interpretation,
FC - "I take every Biblical text at face value.... When I quote a verse, I expect people to see what it actually says...."

Now what is this "face value"? Who determines "what it actually says"? I speak of it in the context of differing beliefs between believers in Christ.
Let's take Matt 5:29-30 as an example.
FC - "The plain understanding is in the context itself....He’s talking about the inner eyes that see inwardly, the inner hand that does inwardly."
Is the context always limited to that chapter alone? Isn't the context all revealed truth of God - the entire Word of God?
Anyway, consider Matt 18:9 and Mark 9:47 also - and one could say that the "plain understanding" is that it refers to the physical eye and hand and foot.
FC - "To think that Jesus is talking about the physical is to misunderstand him. He’s talking about the inner eyes that see inwardly, the inner hand that does inwardly."
And one could say that the above statement of yours is the explanation.
And when - "According to the dictionary definition, the practice of interpretation explains a text." - you'd be construed as having interpreted the text to this understanding.

How do you perceive this situation? How do you, personally, determine who's on the right? What's that determining factor? This would help me understand your position more clearly.


FC - "You are doing exactly what Protestantism has trained you to do. “Properly†interpret the Bible according to the authority of a denomination. Protestants are expected to interpret on their own (the old read the Bible for yourself trick), and then to conform to the interpretations of the denomination. Doesn’t matter if your interpretations lead you in a different direction. You are expected to conform. "

Do you permit yourself to consider that one's own experiences could dictate his understanding of God rather than limiting anything you deem as interpretation to be a product of only some denominational enforcement?


FC - "(Rom 9:33 KJV) Therein is your answer. Meditate on Rom 9 in that contextual light."

See, in our discussion, I am trying to understand what you believe. As you said earlier, when the writer is not there to explain what he meant, it gives rise to interpretation. But you're here - so please explain what you mean without asking me to decipher it elsewhere.
Again, in an attempt to save time, I assume that you attribute the difference in treatment towards Isaac and Jacob as compared to Ishmael and Esau to something that Isaac,Jacob did and that Ishmael,Esau didn't - just the same as what we do or don't differentiates us today - namely believing. Correct me if I've got this wrong.

If this is what you meant, then contextually, Rom 9:11 impresses upon the fact that this is not based on anything they did per se - because they were not even born yet. Is that plain understanding according to you? God's purpose according to election is stated as the determining factor. So, is that still partiality?

Also, if the determining factor was ultimately man's doing this or not doing that - basically his works - then we put ourselves under the law and not under grace. How do you reconcile this?


ivdavid -"If his intent is wrong in the sight of God, he has done an unrighteous deed."
FC - "Guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that."

I take it from your statement following your above quote, that it is not with my above quote you disagree with.
So going back to what we started with,
ivdavid - " 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€

From what I've understood, your current issue is not with any of these 3 points as such but the premise (d) that all unregenerate people do not have righteous intents before God.

FC - "You apparently believe that all human intent is automatically unrighteous. I disagree. Note Abel and Enoch (Heb 11)."
Well, "humans" can be in the flesh or in the spirit[after regeneration]. The regenerated again can walk by the flesh or by the Spirit. I believe that all intents of the flesh are unrighteous. I don't consider Abel and Enoch to be unregenerate.
The inclinations of the flesh are in enmity with God[Rom 8:7] - how then can they be righteous?


FC - "Answer me this. Is the lust of the flesh the same as the sexual biological function of the body?"
Are we comparing the same things here? Lust of the flesh is a desire and the sexual function of the body is an action. Our desires lead to our actions. The question should be over what desire caused the action. The action of sexual body functions could be out of a sinful desire of the flesh to satisfy only the self OR the action could be out of a God-given desire of love towards the woman He has given.

FC - "And another. What is the difference between the flesh and the flesh?"
I didn't quite get you there.

 

[Former Christian]

Ivdavid

You keep asking me the same questions. That isn’t going to help you to understand what I believe. You don’t appear to me to understand what I believe any better than when you started this conversation. I don't mean to sound rude. Just seems that way to me.

What I believe about Justification and Sanctification is very simple. Much simpler than the ideas of Christianity that apparently require books to understand.

I believe that our own human faith is NOT sufficient to Justify us. But it is sufficient to put us into the proper position where we can be Justified. Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. As Paul keeps repeating in hopes we’ll get it, our Justification has nothing to do with the Law. Just like it had nothing to do with Justifying Abraham. Like Abraham, we believe God and it is sufficient to put us into Christ. Our part is to believe into Christ by believing God. It’s not by faith alone. Among the works that express our faith is water baptism, beginning to let Christ teach us the Bible, beginning to care for this planet, beginning to help the poor and destitute among the brethren first and then among all of the people who are in Adam. If we choose to not believe God, it ends right there. If we believe God, God’s part is to Baptize us into Christ through the Holy Spirit. And in Christ we are Justified by the faith and works of Christ.

Our faith is also expressed by beginning the work of fighting against the flesh within and the devil and the world without. By taking up our cross daily. But we are NOT kept through the strength of our own faith. We are kept by the power of God through the faith of Christ. We are sealed by the Holy Spirit and we are in Christ for eternity. We don’t have to be rebaptized every time we stumble and sin. If we confess, that is, agree with God about our sin, then God will forgive us our sin. And we continue foreward being conformed to the image of Christ by being transformed by the renewing of our mind through the Holy Spirit.

What I believe about the practice of Biblical interpretation is also very simple. No one who is in Christ should do it nor do they need to do it. Jesus Christ gives the proper understanding of the Bible through the Holy Spirit in the human spirit to all who are in Christ, if, and the big if is, if they will walk by the Holy Spirit in their spirit. Those who aren’t in Christ really have no choice but to understand the Bible through the exercise of their own mind, through the practice of Biblical interpretation. And anyone who is in Christ and is interpreting the Bible is obviously not walking by the Holy Spirit; neither listening to the teaching of Jesus Christ, nor hearing what the Spirit is saying to the ekklesia.

Please try to understand this much. As you believe, so shall you reap.

Those who don’t believe God will reap the reward of a godless life here on earth and a godless eternity in hell. Those who believe that they are Justified by their own faith alone or by their own faith and works, will be Justified according to the strength of their own faith. They’ll be judged according to their own faith or faith and works. And don’t be fooled by rhetoric. God grants every one sufficient faith to believe, it’s we who choose to use that faith to believe or not believe God. There is no one who has an excuse. Those who practice interpretation will understand the Bible according to their own interpretations, or even worse, someone else’s.

If you want to know more about what I believe, feel free to ask about other aspects of my faith.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Ivdavid

The following is at least in keeping with this thread.


“From what I've understood, your current issue is not with any of these 3 points as such but the premise (d) that all unregenerate people do not have righteous intents before God.
FC - "You apparently believe that all human intent is automatically unrighteous. I disagree. Note Abel and Enoch (Heb 11)."
Well, "humans" can be in the flesh or in the spirit[after regeneration]. The regenerated again can walk by the flesh or by the Spirit. I believe that all intents of the flesh are unrighteous. I don't consider Abel and Enoch to be unregenerate.
The inclinations of the flesh are in enmity with God[Rom 8:7] - how then can they be righteous?â€

Romans 7:22-25: “For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.â€

And in between is the Soul that you don’t as yet understand, by your own admission.

I think that herein you have given your side of the matter of free will. That everyone is unregenerate unless you deem them to be regenerate. You consider Abel and Enoch regenerate. Perhaps you should give your definition of regenerate.

“VERB, (especially in Christian use) give a new and higher spiritual nature to..... ADJECTIVE, reformed or reborn, especially in a spiritual or moral sense.†(Oxford Dictionary)

Is this how you understand regeneration?

FC

 

[Ztheberean]

I have gotten myself tied up in some knots regarding "free will."
I wonder if anyone has any thoughts that might help me.

Here is what seems to be my problem:
We are all born blind to God. I was born this way, same as everyone else.

So when I hear someone say to another that they have willfully chosen to reject God, it bothers me.

It is like saying....free will is this good thing that we have within our SELVES and we use it to find God. But there is nothing good in us...

I don't THINK I used free will.....
One day, I just suddenly SAW that He WAS.

I guess I am thinking if there is any such thing as free will, it must only come into play AFTER He has cured our blindness...

Any thoughts or verses?

Our Will OR God’s Will?

The deceptiveness of “free will†is found in its so-called simplicity: IF “we choose†to obey God, we can; and if “we decide†to rebel against God, we can do this too. The problem with this thinking is that in what “we can do†to please God, this is WORKS, and therefore NOT the grace of God at work, so that we could be willing to be doing under HIS workmanship, NOT “oursâ€.

At this present time, there are but a FEW who are acting/teaching according to the election of grace (Rom 11:5). Note that this election process is of grace: Now if it is “by graceâ€, [God working] then it is no more “of works†[“our own work/choosingâ€]; Otherwise it is no more grace (11:6). Grace by works is because we have not obtained election by grace without works: Most herein found are blind to their contradiction of being “in works for grace†(11:5-7); And this is because God has given them a slumbering spirit (11:8); And this is so that they could be entrapped (11:9); And this is because they cannot hear what they need to hear, and see what they need to see (11:8). These believers have stumbled unto falling into darkness (11:11-10).

Those who love this darkness of being into “Their Own Works†rather than the light of being in God working ARE IN CONDEMNATION (Jn 3:19 and 21). Whatever we are into which we have done for “Our†justification [“our will, way, words, or worksâ€], and we have fallen from grace/God’s will, way, words, and works (Gal 5:4). Unless we can acknowledge God’s will, we do not get repentance to be in this truth, so that we could be recovered from the devil’s will (2Tim 2:25-26). The faithful saying is (NOT by “our willâ€) but dead with Him, so that we could live with Him, and suffer with Him, so that we could reign with Him: Deny this, and He will deny you! (2:11-12). NOTE He cannot deny self (2:13); IT IS “WE†WHO ARE TO DENY “SELF†(Matt 16:24).

Whosoever wills {is in “their own willâ€} loses the ability to come after Jesus unto losing their soul (16:25-24 and 26); Beware of this leavening doctrine of the Pharisees [free will] (16:11-12). IF you believe in God by “your choice/choosing†then you are trapped into “ignorantly†worshiping God in a place on this earth, in your body when God says He does NOT dwell in temples/churches that have been made with “men’s hands†nor is He worshiped with our hands (Acts 17:23-25).

God is commanding everyone everywhere to Repent of This IGNORANT worship (17:30); Because God is seeking true worshipers, He says we MUST worship Him in spirit, and in truth (Jn 4:24-23). Humanity has fallen from God’s will be done in spirit into man’s will be done in body! The fall is from being IN spirit (Is 31:3).

 

[childeye]

Our Will OR God’s Will?

The deceptiveness of “free will†is found in its so-called simplicity: IF “we choose†to obey God, we can; and if “we decide†to rebel against God, we can do this too. The problem with this thinking is that in what “we can do†to please God, this is WORKS, and therefore NOT the grace of God at work, so that we could be willing to be doing under HIS workmanship, NOT “oursâ€.

At this present time, there are but a FEW who are acting/teaching according to the election of grace (Rom 11:5). Note that this election process is of grace: Now if it is “by graceâ€, [God working] then it is no more “of works†[“our own work/choosingâ€]; Otherwise it is no more grace (11:6). Grace by works is because we have not obtained election by grace without works: Most herein found are blind to their contradiction of being “in works for grace†(11:5-7); And this is because God has given them a slumbering spirit (11:8); And this is so that they could be entrapped (11:9); And this is because they cannot hear what they need to hear, and see what they need to see (11:8). These believers have stumbled unto falling into darkness (11:11-10).

Those who love this darkness of being into “Their Own Works†rather than the light of being in God working ARE IN CONDEMNATION (Jn 3:19 and 21). Whatever we are into which we have done for “Our†justification [“our will, way, words, or worksâ€], and we have fallen from grace/God’s will, way, words, and works (Gal 5:4). Unless we can acknowledge God’s will, we do not get repentance to be in this truth, so that we could be recovered from the devil’s will (2Tim 2:25-26). The faithful saying is (NOT by “our willâ€) but dead with Him, so that we could live with Him, and suffer with Him, so that we could reign with Him: Deny this, and He will deny you! (2:11-12). NOTE He cannot deny self (2:13); IT IS “WE†WHO ARE TO DENY “SELF†(Matt 16:24).

Whosoever wills {is in “their own willâ€} loses the ability to come after Jesus unto losing their soul (16:25-24 and 26); Beware of this leavening doctrine of the Pharisees [free will] (16:11-12). IF you believe in God by “your choice/choosing†then you are trapped into “ignorantly†worshiping God in a place on this earth, in your body when God says He does NOT dwell in temples/churches that have been made with “men’s hands†nor is He worshiped with our hands (Acts 17:23-25).

God is commanding everyone everywhere to Repent of This IGNORANT worship (17:30); Because God is seeking true worshipers, He says we MUST worship Him in spirit, and in truth (Jn 4:24-23). Humanity has fallen from God’s will be done in spirit into man’s will be done in body! The fall is from being IN spirit (Is 31:3).

Good to hear from you Ztheberean. A good soild post that is Light and dark without ambiguity, unto God's glory.

 

[FrustratedForumer]

God reveals and man responds
God shows Himself to us so that we may believe

Man responds by:

• Obeying or disobeying
• Accepting or rejecting
• Loving or hating
• Being faithful or unfaithful to what he has been shown

Man is not a robot, he does have a choice! God does not force us to accept or reject, that is all up to our brain which God gave us to reason with!

 

[childeye]

God reveals and man responds
God shows Himself to us so that we may believe

Man responds by:

• Obeying or disobeying
• Accepting or rejecting
• Loving or hating
• Being faithful or unfaithful to what he has been shown

Man is not a robot, he does have a choice! God does not force us to accept or reject, that is all up to our brain which God gave us to reason with!

Yes we know this. So here is some revelation. Respectfully do you reject it or accept it?

This is what scripture says:
Matthew 11:25

King James Version (KJV)


25At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

1 Corinthians 1:27-29
King James Version (KJV)



27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29That no flesh should glory in his presence.


Ephesians 1:17
King James Version (KJV)

17That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

Respectfully, this seems to be what you are saying:



ra·tion·al·ism

   /ˈræʃ

ə

nlˌɪz

əm/ Show Spelled[rash-uh-nl-iz-uh

m] Show IPA
–noun 1. the principle or habit of accepting reason as the supreme authority in matters of opinion, belief, or conduct.

2. Philosophy . a. the doctrine that reason alone is a source of knowledge and is independent of experience.

b. (in the philosophies of Descartes, Spinoza, etc.) the doctrine that all knowledge is expressible in self-evident propositions or their consequences.



3. Theology . the doctrine that human reason, unaided by divine revelation, is an adequate or the sole guide to all attainable religious truth.

 

[FrustratedForumer]

Respectfully, Nope! Sorry!

There is nothing to rationalize, nothing to make so complicated, but just take it as it is.

God calls, we say yes or no. Nothing more nothing less.

Also this is not a battle of my font is bigger than yours.

 

[childeye]

Respectfully, Nope! Sorry!

There is nothing to rationalize, nothing to make so complicated, but just take it as it is.

God calls, we say yes or no. Nothing more nothing less.

Also this is not a battle of my font is bigger than yours.

Nope you don't accept it but reject it? Or nope you don't reject it but accept it? I've tempered the font for you.