Bible Study Free will

[smaller]

Who said you had to make your flesh sinless? You are to put your flesh to death -- "crucify the flesh" -- and then walk in the Spirit. Big difference. It appears from your posts that you are obsessed with the flesh. That too is from the flesh.

I recognize the flesh for what it is and don't try to claim it otherwise.

Many people read this scripture:

Galatians 5:16
This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

And they think in their flesh, I HAVE NO LUSTS of the flesh.

And that is a LIE of the flesh.

 

[smaller]

(sigh)
That wasn't "glorying" in the weakness of his own flesh.
That was Paul stating the fact, in great humility, that he was a sinner who had participated in the persecution and murder of believers.

So you think you see, that it was a "pre salvation" statement.

That is NOT what Paul said. Paul said it was a "present tense" statement, being the chief of sinners, not past tense. Were it past tense Paul would have said "I used to be" or "was" the chief of sinners. He didn't say that. He said this: "sinners, of whom I am chief."

And there is a very specific reason he made that statement in the present tense application. Paul was observing the condition of his own flesh, post salvation:

2 Corinthians 12:7
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

Paul was not pointing to himself, but the adversary in his own flesh. The principle behind this IS, that Apostles are singled out for battle by our adversary, in their own flesh.

I do understand that most believers won't understand it. Because we all have the same problems in the flesh to lesser degrees.

Y'all can claim to make the messenger of Satan in the flesh obey and be sinless. I would say you're wasting your time because that can NOT happen.

 

[Cygnus]

We at times spend so much of our discussion on "Popular social issues" we miss the point all together. Sin is the result of a person REJECTING GOD!!" Stop and think clearly YOU do not go to HELL for sinning. YOU go to HELL for rejecting God, Sin is only the result of the natural man living the way he wants too. Ps. 14 1 "The Fool has said..." AND You do not go to HEAVEN for NOT SINNING,( the best, most moral, kind,loving, helpful GOOD person must accept Jesus) YOU go to Heaven for accepting God, Grace,and Jesus. and LIVING FOR GOD. The point is not what sin can I do and still be a christian. Remember the Song. Oh, soul are you weary and troubled, No light in the darkness you see. There is light for a look at the savior and Life more abundant and free. Turn your eye's upon JESUS. Look full in HIS wonderful face. And the things of earth will grow strangely dim in the light of his glory and grace.

The problem here and with most of these discussions is that we get to involved in the details and sin, what is sin, how much do I have Etc.
When we solve the problem be Looking into the blessed Masters Face and only see a future there in Him obedient to Him.
Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.

Please do not so focus on SIN, there is no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus, BECAUSE GOD WILL NOT CONDEMN US FOR WHAT JESUS HAS ALREADY PAID. Instead live in Christ and overcome the world and sin. Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. In Christ we can over come all this world. WE DO NOT have to live in sin all tangled up in choice, will, HE, me, who; it does not matter.
It is a vain discussion of the meaningless. BUT LIVE IN JESUS CHRIST MY ALL IN ALL!

I would think one of those sins that will not be counted towards us is the sins of a believer turning to disbelief...as the true believer will be saved for eternity.

Two "technical points I disagree with in your post is that we don't "accept" Jesus as much as we "receive" Jesus. We may call it accepting Jesus...but in reality to accept Jesus one must already be regenerated. Prior to our regeneration we are dead in our sins and trespases and can't accept Jesus.

 

[Cygnus]

If that is really the case, then God would choose every sinner, since He desires all men to repent, be saved, and come unto the knowledge of the truth (Rev 22:17).

Romans 9 talks about the twins...one is saved and the other isn't. This choice is made prior to their birth...prior to them doing any good or bad.
God has mercy upon whom He desires.

 

[Malachi]

Romans 9 talks about the twins...one is saved and the other isn't. This choice is made prior to their birth...prior to them doing any good or bad.
God has mercy upon whom He desires.

We can't stop with Romans 9. We need to keep Romans 9-11 as one comprehensive revelation. And here's what it says in Rom 11:32: For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

 

[GodsGrace]

We can't stop with Romans 9. We need to keep Romans 9-11 as one comprehensive revelation. And here's what it says in Rom 11:32: For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Malachi
Please learn that if you read just before any verse, or just after any verse you just might come up with THE TRUTH.
And some here don't like THE TRUTH but prefer to believe what they will believe.

I wrote a nice long post about why I couldn't serve a God that chooses me, but, alas, sometimes common sense does not make sense.

It took 1,500 years for the idea to be constructed that God Chooses Whom He Wishes To Be Saved.
I guess the ones who came before just couldn't get this figured out: The same ones who discovered through study that:
Jesus is God
Jesus is fully God and fully man
The Holy Trinity

Yes. I DO like your idea of reading before any verse and after any verse. And it would be wise for all reading along to ask themselves WHY this doctrine of theirs was not even considered before John Calvin was born.

W

 

[GodsGrace]

I would think one of those sins that will not be counted towards us is the sins of a believer turning to disbelief...as the true believer will be saved for eternity.

Two "technical points I disagree with in your post is that we don't "accept" Jesus as much as we "receive" Jesus. We may call it accepting Jesus...but in reality to accept Jesus one must already be regenerated. Prior to our regeneration we are dead in our sins and trespases and can't accept Jesus.

Turning to disbelief is a sin?
We could be forgiven of sin.
Could we be forgiven of unbelief?
Please read Mathew 12:31 It's Jesus speaking.
Also 2 Peter 2:20-22
This is also very clear. It's clearly speaking of someone who was saved and then turned back to unbelief - but some refuse to hear.

W

 

[GodsGrace]

FOR CHILDEYE

Hi,
Looks like I never answered your post. Sorry. I might have bypassed the alert, I don't like to be rude.

Let me just say this:

Wondering Said:
So we have this Will. Is it Free? I think it is, it certainly seems so. it seems to me that I'm making my choice of my own free will with no intervention by God. But is this true? If He has a grand scheme, don't I have to adhere to it? Let me ask you this: Did Mary have free will in saying "YES" to bearing the Son of God? Could she have said "no"? I think it's a lot more complicated than we care to imagine.

Childeye Said:
I don't believe Mary could have said no, but only because she would not will to. The will not only implies the ability to reason and decide, but it also implies desire. The term free can only derive it's meaning from what it is free of. When free will is used in the moral sense, it then becomes an equivocation where it is allegedly free from two contrary powers of Light and dark. Thus instead of the will being free from one power, it gets it's meaning from being free from two separate and opposing powers. This makes the term free will an obfuscation in reasoning. Smaller has posted some very good points concerning this. He refuses to regard, in his reasoning, any sinful desire as a form of freedom. I agree with that, since the term 'free' usually brings to mind a positive inference, which should not be associated with sin.

Therefore I believe we have a will that morally/immorally desires and chooses according to one's knowledge and ignorance of Eternal Truth. I believe some choices are voluntary choices and therefore there is a free will in those choices. But I don't see any voluntary choices made when it comes to how we treat each other.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

I've learned on these threads that most see free-will as a yes or no answer. So I'd have to be on the side of Yes, we do have a free-will. Although, as I've said before, it cannot be that simple as God's sovereignty must surely come into play. His final plan must surely be adhered to. But we are not puppets, to be pushed around and made to take one action or another. Am I living in a Matrix tube? I think not. What kind of God would God be?
God gave us energy. Energy makes us move, it makes us think, it gives us will-power. Will power to do something, if I'm doing something, I'm deciding to do that something - otherwise, yes, we are all in tubes.

But then the question of Mary comes up. And things get complicated.
Gabriel, the messenger with all the important messages, shows up at Mary's home.
Luke 1:31
It doesn't sound like he's asking, does it? You WILL conceive...
Clearly God chose Mary to be the bearer of His Son. It was not her choice.
Then there's the hardening of Pharoah's heart which the NON free will people love to bring up.
Did God really harden his heart so He could be glorified? Is it simply that the Israelites attributed everything to God, even the hardening of one's heart? Did God get a pen in hand and write each word and thought, or did He inspire ?
See, it's complicated and requires a calm disposition and a strong heart to speak about these things.

And, in the end, I think the best we can do is decide if we feel God wants all to come to Him or just a few.
I'm afraid I've lost my train of thought and we'd have to start all over again!
But it was interesting. I'm sorry.

Wondering
P.S. I didn't understand this: But I don't see any voluntary choices made when it comes to how we treat each other. I agree about the two influences, but, just quick, to me being free means being free from the evil influence. We are never really free, but we're helped by the Holy Spirit to avoid it as much as possible. The "dominion" of sin...

 

[GodsGrace]

I would think one of those sins that will not be counted towards us is the sins of a believer turning to disbelief...as the true believer will be saved for eternity.

Two "technical points I disagree with in your post is that we don't "accept" Jesus as much as we "receive" Jesus. We may call it accepting Jesus...but in reality to accept Jesus one must already be regenerated. Prior to our regeneration we are dead in our sins and trespases and can't accept Jesus.

Of course. Everything you believe is affected by your theory of having no free-will.
So first I get generated - so I'm no longer a man in the natural, but a man in the spirit?
THEN I accept Jesus?

Doesn't it make common sense to ACCEPT (sorry about that word) Jesus first and THEN to become regenerated?
If I'm regenerated, what do I need Jesus for?

Read 1 Corinthians 2:14
A natural man does not accept the things of the spirit. So if I'm accepting the things of the spirit (regeneration) it means I've already accepted Jesus as savior and am already regenerated.

This should be thought about carefully.

And please show me SOMEONE who believed as John Calvin did. Before he came up with his idea. I call it "idea".

Wondering

 

[Cygnus]

We can't stop with Romans 9. We need to keep Romans 9-11 as one comprehensive revelation. And here's what it says in Rom 11:32: For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

So, either you found a contradiction in the book of Romans...or you are interpreting it wrong.

 

[Cygnus]

Turning to disbelief is a sin?
We could be forgiven of sin.
Could we be forgiven of unbelief?
Please read Mathew 12:31 It's Jesus speaking.
Also 2 Peter 2:20-22
This is also very clear. It's clearly speaking of someone who was saved and then turned back to unbelief - but some refuse to hear.

W

Very clear? I read the verse...perhaps you could post the verse and highlight thepart that is VERY clear.

 

[Cygnus]

Of course. Everything you believe is affected by your theory of having no free-will.
So first I get generated - so I'm no longer a man in the natural, but a man in the spirit?
THEN I accept Jesus?

Doesn't it make common sense to ACCEPT (sorry about that word) Jesus first and THEN to become regenerated?
If I'm regenerated, what do I need Jesus for?

Read 1 Corinthians 2:14
A natural man does not accept the things of the spirit. So if I'm accepting the things of the spirit (regeneration) it means I've already accepted Jesus as savior and am already regenerated.

This should be thought about carefully.

And please show me SOMEONE who believed as John Calvin did. Before he came up with his idea. I call it "idea".

Wondering

You said...
Doesn't it make common sense to ACCEPT (sorry about that word) Jesus first and THEN to become regenerated?
If I'm regenerated, what do I need Jesus for?

To you it might...but what does the bible say? Perhaps we should start a thread on the ordo salutis

“Those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified” Romans 8:30

 

[GodsGrace]

Very clear? I read the verse...perhaps you could post the verse and highlight thepart that is VERY clear.

Here's the passage Cygnus:
2 Peter 2:20-22

verse 20
20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning.

Peter is obviously concerned for his readers in his second letter. Verses 17 to 19 speak about believers being lead astray be false teachers. Interesting by itself.

Verse 20 is obviously speaking about believers who had overcome the world and are now again entangled in it and practicing sin, as Peter wrote about and exhorted his readers not to do throughout the letter.

21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.

Peter is addressing persons who had come to know the Lord and His saving grace, they accepted salvation, and then -for whatever reason- they ceased to believe and became lost and entangled in the world. The bible is clear that we are not to be a part of the world if we expect to follow Jesus. Jesus chose for us to come out of the world.
John 15:19

22 But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: “A dog returns to his own vomit,”a]" data-fn="#fen-NKJV-30523a">[a] and, “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.”

The proverb here referred to is Proverbs 26:11
"As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool returns to his folly." KJV

The fool is the man who returns to the world and to his folly. His folly is: foolishness not adhering to God's word, or sin. Returning to the "world." And so he would be worse off than before, when he was ignorant of the Word of God, but having known it choosing to return to a life of sin away from the Savior.

Wondering

 

[GodsGrace]

You said...
Doesn't it make common sense to ACCEPT (sorry about that word) Jesus first and THEN to become regenerated?
If I'm regenerated, what do I need Jesus for?

To you it might...but what does the bible say? Perhaps we should start a thread on the ordo salutis

“Those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified” Romans 8:30

I repeat that the bible must be looked at as a complete picture. You're pulling out verses again.

Start with Romans 8:28 and you'll have your answer.
All things work for the good to them that love the Lord. To them that are called according to HIS PURPOSE. Each one of us has a purpose.

Romans 8:29 God FOREKNEW those who would be saved and for them He has a purpose.
And them did He PREDESTINATE to be CONFORMED TO THE IMAGE of His son.
The predestination refers to the image we are to assume. The regeneration, as you correctly call it.

So God has a grand plan. That plan, which we cannot know, is predestined. Within that plan, we are free.

And those whom he "predestined" to the image of His Son, He also called (God reaches down to man) and whom he called He Justified, and whom He justified He also glorified.

I would once again like to ask you to please provide ONE early church father and theologian who even CONSIDERED that we do not have free will and who believed in double predestination and who believed that salvation could not be lost.

You will not find one because this position is not scriptural.

Wondering

 

[GodsGrace]

So, either you found a contradiction in the book of Romans...or you are interpreting it wrong.

Your above is for Malchi but I'd like to give you a new idea.
Everyone who wrote books and letters from the O.T. to the N.T. believed in the One True God.
They believed that everything that happened was atributable to God Almighty.
If you can accept this, the bible becomes much easier to understand.

For instance: The raising of Lazarus.
John 11:38-42
Jesus didn't get to Bethany right away. Lazarus died.
Jesus told Martha that if she believed she would see the glory of God.
Jesus told His Father in heaven that He said that so the people standing around might believe that the Father in heaven sent Him.
So - Did God make Lazarus die so that Jesus could then show His glory to those present at the raising of Lazarus? Maybe yes. Maybe no.

W

 

[Cygnus]

Here's the passage Cygnus:
2 Peter 2:20-22

verse 20
20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning.

Peter is obviously concerned for his readers in his second letter. Verses 17 to 19 speak about believers being lead astray be false teachers. Interesting by itself.

Verse 20 is obviously speaking about believers who had overcome the world and are now again entangled in it and practicing sin, as Peter wrote about and exhorted his readers not to do throughout the letter.

21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.

Peter is addressing persons who had come to know the Lord and His saving grace, they accepted salvation, and then -for whatever reason- they ceased to believe and became lost and entangled in the world. The bible is clear that we are not to be a part of the world if we expect to follow Jesus. Jesus chose for us to come out of the world.
John 15:19

22 But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: “A dog returns to his own vomit,”a]" data-fn="#fen-NKJV-30523a">[a] and, “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.”

The proverb here referred to is Proverbs 26:11
"As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool returns to his folly." KJV

The fool is the man who returns to the world and to his folly. His folly is: foolishness not adhering to God's word, or sin. Returning to the "world." And so he would be worse off than before, when he was ignorant of the Word of God, but having known it choosing to return to a life of sin away from the Savior.

Wondering

It seems as if those verses are about people who had a false profession of faith. People that returned to their old ways.

 

[GodsGrace]

It seems as if those verses are about people who had a false profession of faith. People that returned to their old ways.

I know. We see what we want to see.
For AFTER they have escaped the pollution of the world through the KNOWLEDGE of the Lord and SAVIOR Jesus Christ, they are AGAIN entangled in them and OVERCOME...

The KNOWLEDGE of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

What do you suppose "knowledge" means?
Why do you suppose Paul refers to Jesus as SAVIOR?

AFTER they escaped the pollution of the world by the KNOWLEDGE of the Savior.

They are AGAIN entangled...

AGAIN

So, they were IN the world - lost
They gained the knowledge of the Savior - saved
They again were entangled - lost

Of course, Calvinism will say they had a FALSE profession of faith.
HOW could you be sure YOU don't?

You still haven't given me any proof that the idea of OSAS was in Christian doctrine BEFORE J. Calvin proclaimed it. That means Christianity had NO concept of Calvin's ideas for 1,500 years. Does that seem reasonable to you?

It can be shown from church writers that every important doctrine existed in the early years and that all doctrine was established by about the 300's.

Please show how J.C.'s concept was even considered back then. Please remember that these early theologians and church fathers were close (in time) to the apostles. For example, St. Ignatius of Antioch knew the Apostle John personally and studied with him.

I'd appreciate it.

W

 

[Cygnus]

I know. We see what we want to see.
For AFTER they have escaped the pollution of the world through the KNOWLEDGE of the Lord and SAVIOR Jesus Christ, they are AGAIN entangled in them and OVERCOME...

The KNOWLEDGE of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

What do you suppose "knowledge" means?
Why do you suppose Paul refers to Jesus as SAVIOR?

AFTER they escaped the pollution of the world by the KNOWLEDGE of the Savior.

They are AGAIN entangled...

AGAIN

So, they were IN the world - lost
They gained the knowledge of the Savior - saved
They again were entangled - lost

Of course, Calvinism will say they had a FALSE profession of faith.
HOW could you be sure YOU don't?

You still haven't given me any proof that the idea of OSAS was in Christian doctrine BEFORE J. Calvin proclaimed it. That means Christianity had NO concept of Calvin's ideas for 1,500 years. Does that seem reasonable to you?

It can be shown from church writers that every important doctrine existed in the early years and that all doctrine was established by about the 300's.

Please show how J.C.'s concept was even considered back then. Please remember that these early theologians and church fathers were close (in time) to the apostles. For example, St. Ignatius of Antioch knew the Apostle John personally and studied with him.

I'd appreciate it.

W

I know of people who have the "The KNOWLEDGE of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."...and are not saved. This seems to contradict your statement that knowledge equals salvation.

 

[Jim Parker]

I know. We see what we want to see.
For AFTER they have escaped the pollution of the world through the KNOWLEDGE of the Lord and SAVIOR Jesus Christ, they are AGAIN entangled in them and OVERCOME...
The KNOWLEDGE of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
What do you suppose "knowledge" means?
Why do you suppose Paul refers to Jesus as SAVIOR?
AFTER they escaped the pollution of the world by the KNOWLEDGE of the Savior.
They are AGAIN entangled...
AGAIN
So, they were IN the world - lost
They gained the knowledge of the Savior - saved
They again were entangled - lost
Of course, Calvinism will say they had a FALSE profession of faith.
HOW could you be sure YOU don't?
You still haven't given me any proof that the idea of OSAS was in Christian doctrine BEFORE J. Calvin proclaimed it. That means Christianity had NO concept of Calvin's ideas for 1,500 years. Does that seem reasonable to you?
It can be shown from church writers that every important doctrine existed in the early years and that all doctrine was established by about the 300's.
Please show how J.C.'s concept was even considered back then. Please remember that these early theologians and church fathers were close (in time) to the apostles. For example, St. Ignatius of Antioch knew the Apostle John personally and studied with him.
I'd appreciate it.
W

:yes
Thank you.

 

[Jim Parker]

I know of people who have the "The KNOWLEDGE of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."...and are not saved. This seems to contradict your statement that knowledge equals salvation.

Then look at what the rest of the passage says.

(RSV) Heb 6:4For it is impossible to restore again to repentance (1) those who have once been enlightened, (2)
who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, (3)
Heb 6:5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, (4)
Heb 6:6 if they then commit apostasy, (5) since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.

(1) You cannot "restore" someone to repentance unless he has already been repentant.
(2) The word "enlightened" is the 1st century term meaning "saved."
(3) A person only becomes a partaker of the Holy Spirit if he is saved.;
(4) The powers of the age to come are the charismatic gifts which the Holy Spirit gives to BELIEVERS. (Not to pretend believers.)
(5) A person cannot commit apostasy unless he is first a believer.

The rest of the passage CONFIRMS that knowledge equals salvation.

And I'd like to see your responses to w's points:
"You still haven't given me any proof that the idea of OSAS was in Christian doctrine BEFORE J. Calvin proclaimed it. That means Christianity had NO concept of Calvin's ideas for 1,500 years. Does that seem reasonable to you?

It can be shown from church writers that every important doctrine existed in the early years and that all doctrine was established by about the 300's.

Please show how J.C.'s concept was even considered back then. Please remember that these early theologians and church fathers were close (in time) to the apostles. For example, St. Ignatius of Antioch knew the Apostle John personally and studied with him."