Freewill religion is the Man of Sin !

[Elijah674]

I don't disagree with scripture either.. as you implied earlier.. and I believe that this verse means exactly what it says, that He is that true light which lighteth every man that comes into the world..



I'll start a thread and call it "Election in Christ".. rather than explain here in this post.



Well if you're ignorant of what is meant by unconditional election, you can easily look online at the multitudes of sites which speak to this.



Again, if you're ignorant of these things then perhaps you should look into what they mean.



Really.. how hostile is it to start a thread titled "Freewill religion is the man of sin" targeted at those who do accept free will ? ? ? I don't hear you calling that hostile.. maybe because you're so biased to it and yet you admit that you don't understand it.

It is Christ's Word that they are fighting, not you. (per/say)
See 2 Cor. 4:2

Because the Godhead has known in Eternity that They were a Perfect God, and that their creation only had a starting point of this Truth, then when the freedom that Their creation had (and always has) to choose evil.. which Lucifer did freely did do, it was then a need to have an Universal court testified out to its end for the Godhead Theirself to be Eternally Vindicated. Nah. 1:9 That is what it is all about! Isa. 8:20 + Eccl. 12:13-14

It is about ALL FINISHED! It is then that satan & his crew will be BLOTTED from the Universe! Obad. 1:16

And there are just two sides allowed by God. His & satan's crew. Matt. 6:24! Christ has always documented just a small Remnant for His own of Rev. 12:17 (Matt. 7's narrow way/broadway) and satan's manny of Rev. 17:1-5 Ending.

--Elijah

 

[Former Christian]

Childeye

“Yes we are human but that is a rather general explanation. What is sinning willingly? For Paul seperates the desires of sin in the flesh from his desire to not sin even though he is flesh. We find this in the book of Romans where he declares, that which I will to do I don't do and that which I don't will to do that I do, therefore It is not I that does it but sin that dwelleth in my members. And as we know, one act of love covers a multitude of sins.
I say this to promote mercy and understanding of others for the sake of righeous judgment. My question was meant to ponder why one would want to condemn others and want to be a sinner. Certainly I am human but I don't want to be a sinner.â€

Romans 7 is interpreted in many different ways. A fight between the mind and the flesh. A fight between the spirit and the flesh. A fight with himself. By it’s position in Romans, it’s referring to one who is in Christ. Paul is speaking from his soul concerning the constant war within him between the spirit and the flesh. In his mind he wants to follow the God who contacts him through his spirit. But there is this tug from the flesh that counteracts what he wants to do in his mind.

But do not think that this has no application to non-believers. Some do just give in to the flesh wholeheartedly. But some do not. Any semblance of civilization wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for those who, in their fight between their own flesh and what they want to do in their own mind, didn’t actually do what their mind told them to do. In the American Police Force, there are mostly non-believers. Some give in to the flesh in some ways. There are gays in the Police force. Yet they have a sense of civilization, and they act accordingly. Most don’t beat up everyone in sight they don’t agree with. They follow the laws of the land and expect others to do so as well. I like the TV serial “Hunterâ€. Neither Hunter nor McCall were religious people. But they both had a sense of Justice. Believe it or not, there are people just like them in Police Forces around the US. And the same with common citizens. I have many common citizen friends. I know what their about and how much I can trust them with my life. How much would you trust King Saul with your life? How much would you trust his successor King David with your life? We always have to be discerning. But we shouldn’t paranoia displace discernment.

Paul emphasizes the thinking mind over emotion because he was an educated person. He doesn’t emphasize the emotions as is done today. He did the same thing in 1 Corinthians 12-14. With the mind I will do thus and so.

The end of Romans 7 is:

24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 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.
(KJV)

Romans 8 is the answer to Romans 7. Those who walk according to the Spirit will not be condemned in his own mind (8:1). The necessary life that answers the dilemma of Romans 7 is in Romans 8:

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
(KJV)

Then Paul goes on to reveal that walking by the flesh is the only way we can fully overcome the flesh. He repeats the same thing in Galatians 5.

I have discovered that Christians rarely consider the matter of the soul anymore. The soul is what we are. The heart is a part of the soul. The mind is a part of the soul. Without a knowledge of the soul, we are apt to do everything from the soul or the flesh, rather than through the spirit.

Love covers a multitude of sins. Outside of the Body of Christ it doesn’t. More often then not, inside the Body of Christ it doesn’t. But the idea is there if we will only use it. Forgive 7 X 7. Think of others more than ourselves. Even in it’s most simple terms, do unto others as you would have them do to you, love your neighbor as yourself. And Paul clearly stated that it wasn’t just affection that is being referred to. Jesus made it plain that he referred to its practice being more than just toward our own click or only those who in Christ. Think how much better the world would be if all Christians practiced the Golden Rule, following the example of Christ, and if only half of those who aren’t in Christ followed the example of the Christians.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
(KJV)

God loved the world with a perfect love. He gave His Son. But it isn’t often realized that love is a two way street. One loves, the one loved must accept that love. What does not accepting that love do to the one loved?

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
(KJV)

Nothing whatsoever. It’s as though he was never loved. What does that do in the terms of a relationship? Nothing. It’s as though the relationship didn’t exist. Ever been around Married couples where one is doing his or her best to make the marriage work and the other is dong nothing at all? What happens? Nothing at all. The marriage is as though it didn’t exist. I feel so sorry for those who have been told they have to spend the rest of their lives making the best of a bad situation. It’s like a death sentence. One has been condemned to live in a dead relationship, which is a non-existent relationship. As the saying goes, it takes two to tango.

Do you think that God has done that? By loving the world has entered into a relationship with the world? Not at all. Rather He has opened a way to a relationship. A reconciliation through His Son. For those who choose to accept, to believe, the relationship is begun. They have entered into the relationship of the new creation in Christ. The rest have what they’ve always had. Nothing as far as God is concerned. They are already condemned to that which is apart from the relationship with God.

You claim to love. Look past the fault that you like to emphasize and see through the eyes that loved the world so much that He gave his only begotten Son.

FC

 

[childeye]

Really.. how hostile is it to start a thread titled "Freewill religion is the man of sin" targeted at those who do accept free will ? ? ? I don't hear you calling that hostile..

I dislike all hostilities. As I see it, there is only one Truth we must all submit to but we argue over that Truth. Most of these arguments are based on nuances of interpretation and miscommunication. They must be if we all agree with the Christ and the commandment to Love one another as he loved us. And he suffered a cross and forgave those who crucified him saying, forgive them for they know not what they do.

maybe because you're so biased to it and yet you admit that you don't understand it.

I am biased only towards how I see the Truth. I address the term freewill because it is elusive in definition and relative in my view. As we stand divided, the question of how much God is in control and we are, and in what way, is very relevant. As it is a basis for judgment of others including ourselves. For if God chose to have some see and others not, He may be seeing how much one lords such knowledge over others and sifts the elements in this way. I would guess that He wants only the most subserviant conditioned in altruistic love to be in charge of His government. Therefore the scripture says, He has made us all kings and priests. No man can remake himself in such a way, only God has foreknown how to create the perfect Kingdom. Out of fear of God I am not commited to condemning any man because they cannot help their unbelief. Otherwise how can I bear my cross and forgive those who tresspass against me with a pure heart? I simply am doing what I would want done to me.

 

[Eventide]

I dislike all hostilities.

So is starting a thread like "Freewill Religion is the man of sin" hostile in your opinion..?

As I see it, there is only one Truth we must all submit to but we argue over that Truth. Most of these arguments are based on nuances of interpretation and miscommunication. They must be if we all agree with the Christ and the commandment to Love one another as he loved us. And he suffered a cross and forgave those who crucified him saying, forgive them for they know not what they do.

We all see through the glass 'dimly' right now.. I don't believe that there is any person who has it all figured out..

I am biased only towards how I see the Truth.

We all are.. and when people tell me that God had to enable them to repent and believe the gospel, while not affording this to all men, I take offense to it.. I believe that He is that true light which lighteth every man that comes into the world..

I address the term freewill because it is elusive in definition and relative in my view. As we stand divided, the question of how much God is in control and we are, and in what way, is very relevant. As it is a basis for judgment of others including ourselves. For if God chose to have some see and others not, He may be seeing how much one lords such knowledge over others and sifts the elements in this way. I would guess that He wants only the most subserviant conditioned in altruistic love to be in charge of His government. Therefore the scripture says, He has made us all kings and priests. No man can remake himself in such a way, only God has foreknown how to create the perfect Kingdom. Out of fear of God I am not commited to condemning any man because they cannot help their unbelief. Otherwise how can I bear my cross and forgive those who tresspass against me with a pure heart? I simply am doing what I would want done to me.

So then it appears to me that you do believe that God only allows certain men to believe and that the rest are just simply out of luck so to speak.. is that correct ?

 

[childeye]

=Eventide;566729]So is starting a thread like "Freewill Religion is the man of sin" hostile in your opinion..?

You ask my opinion. I sense SBG dislikes giving any credence to man's ability to do anything or Satan. All are the workings of God to him and he feels he is honoring God's sovereignty who has created all things for His purpose. I do not think it is meant to be hostile however.

We all see through the glass 'dimly' right now.. I don't believe that there is any person who has it all figured out..

Well said Eventide. Such a statement should temper us all.

We all are.. and when people tell me that God had to enable them to repent and believe the gospel, while not affording this to all men, I take offense to it.. I believe that He is that true light which lighteth every man that comes into the world..

I would say with all love and due respect, to not be offended at whatever God does. Nor do we need to understand it, just trust in Him no matter what He does. The light that is the Word of God and the light and life of man is Love. I apply the phrase "that comes into the world" to every man while I believe you apply it to the Christ.
Only later will we find out who's right.

So then it appears to me that you do believe that God only allows certain men to believe and that the rest are just simply out of luck so to speak.. is that correct ?

I am so glad you did not use the term freewill in this question, so that I may answer without many semantics to dodge. You are correct to a point. I believe that God has chosen a people to be Kings and Priests, but that does not mean the others are out of luck. For there are those whom the kings and Priests will serve in the Kingdom of God. When we look at Jacob and Esau, we note that Jacob received the blessing, for God said Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated. Yet with the blessing attained through God's election, as Jacob returned with the wealth ascertained through the blessing, he sent it all ahead of him as gifts to his brother Esau. And so Esau ended up with all the wealth earned by his brother through the blessing, although he did not receive the blessing. So it is we read where Esau says to God, In where have you loved me? And God answers, in that I loved Jacob.

 

[Eventide]

You ask my opinion. I sense SBG dislikes giving any credence to man's ability to do anything or Satan. All are the workings of God to him and he feels he is honoring God's sovereignty who has created all things for His purpose. I do not think it is meant to be hostile however.

Maybe you're right.. maybe starting a thread about how freewill religion is the man of sin is just the way he speaks the truth in love.

I would say with all love and due respect, to not be offended at whatever God does.

I don't get offended at what God does.. I get offended at what many people SAY that God does.. like unconditionally choosing some and not others.. or that He only died for the elect, when He is the elect.. etc etc

Nor do we need to understand it, just trust in Him no matter what He does. The light that is the Word of God and the light and life of man is Love. I apply the phrase "that comes into the world" to every man while I believe you apply it to the Christ.
Only later will we find out who's right.

When the bible says that He is that true light which ligheth every man that comes into the world.. I take it to mean exactly what it says that it means.. regardless of the fact that it may entail way more than I can possibly comprehend.

I don't understand what you think it means.. perhaps you can elaborate more on that.

I am so glad you did not use the term freewill in this question, so that I may answer without many semantics to dodge. You are correct to a point. I believe that God has chosen a people to be Kings and Priests, but that does not mean the others are out of luck. For there are those whom the kings and Priests will serve in the Kingdom of God. When we look at Jacob and Esau, we note that Jacob received the blessing, for God said Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated. Yet with the blessing attained through God's election, as Jacob returned with the wealth ascertained through the blessing, he sent it all ahead of him as gifts to his brother Esau. And so Esau ended up with all the wealth earned by his brother through the blessing, although he did not receive the blessing. So it is we read where Esau says to God, In where have you loved me? And God answers, in that I loved Jacob.

We're told in scripture that Esau SOLD his birthright to satisy his flesh.. do you think that had anything at all to do with him not getting the blessing..?

 

[childeye]

Maybe you're right.. maybe starting a thread about how freewill religion is the man of sin is just the way he speaks the truth in love.

You are wise to say such a statement about SBG. It is receiving SBG even as you would want to be recieved. It is Godly Love full of understanding and all humility. I maintain what we believe to be true determines what spirits live in us. This statement should be counted as true, as the spirit that proceeds from it is Christlike.

I don't get offended at what God does.. I get offended at what many people SAY that God does.. like unconditionally choosing some and not others.. or that He only died for the elect, when He is the elect.. etc etc

What I meant is if God does do things this way we have no right to be offended.

When the bible says that He is that true light which ligheth every man that comes into the world.. I take it to mean exactly what it says that it means.. regardless of the fact that it may entail way more than I can possibly comprehend.

I don't understand what you think it means.. perhaps you can elaborate more on that.

I think there is the Word through which all things were created. This Word is God's expressing Himself and so it is Him. All things created have the energy from this Word spoken in faith and becoming physical matter, but God is Spirit and invisible. Mankind has this Spirit present in some degree and identifies it as Love, so that the light of man is what is goodness in man, and this is God in man.

Of course the Christ is this Word made flesh and so he is a light to us that we can see made into physical matter, yet he is also that invisble Word that also resides in the heart as Love. For this reason he said you must have the Love of God in your heart to believe in the Christ. Christ is the revelation of the invisible God so as to know Him personally.

That's what I get when I read the Word of God is that light that lighteth every man that comes into the world, so as if it said, every man that ever came into the world, love is his light and this light is God and this Word was made flesh so we might know Him. It may be so that the words "that comes into the world" may be refering to the Christ rather than "every man", but the meaning does not really change drastically for we know Christ came into the world and he is the True light. If any man believe in this Christ, he will be changed on the inside.

We're told in scripture that Esau SOLD his birthright to satisy his flesh.. do you think that had anything at all to do with him not getting the blessing..?

I think Esau is carnal minded simply because of the order of his birth. The firstborn has a unique perspective and we find this throughout scripture. Surely God foreknew this, for before they were ever born, and had neither done good or evil God had said Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated. Incidentally Cain was firtsborn.

 

[Eventide]

You are wise to say such a statement about SBG. It is receiving SBG even as you would want to be recieved. It is Godly Love full of understanding and all humility. I maintain what we believe to be true determines what spirits live in us. This statement should be counted as true, as the spirit that proceeds from it is Christlike.

I do not receive what SBG says, I believe it is false doctrine based upon a false understanding of who the elect is.

What I meant is if God does do things this way we have no right to be offended.

There's a significant difference between how God does things and how men perceive what God does.

If any man believe in this Christ, he will be changed on the inside.

S then you do believe that man must believe in order to be saved..

I think Esau is carnal minded simply because of the order of his birth. The firstborn has a unique perspective and we find this throughout scripture. Surely God foreknew this, for before they were ever born, and had neither done good or evil God had said Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated. Incidentally Cain was firtsborn.

Christ was firstborn too.. so does that mean that He was carnal.. ?

 

[childeye]

I do not receive what SBG says, I believe it is false doctrine based upon a false understanding of who the elect is.

Yes I know this, but I did not say receive what SBG says but rather the intent behind why he says it.

There's a significant difference between how God does things and how men perceive what God does.

Yes this is true. So what? We all here have our perspectives and humility is a good thing. Remember the words you said about how we all see through a glass darkly.

S then you do believe that man must believe in order to be saved..

I do believe this is the point of the Gospel. In what order men come to believe is God's plan. It is enough for me to understand that it is not wrong to hope that all men will eventually come unto the knowledge of the Truth and be saved.

Christ was firstborn too.. so does that mean that He was carnal.. ?

How did I know you would say this? Christ was the first begotten as in the Spirit of God, not the flesh, since God is not flesh but Spirit. But of course you know this, as I have read your writings on the second Adam.

 

[Eventide]

How did I know you would say this? Christ was the first begotten as in the Spirit of God, not the flesh, since God is not flesh but Spirit. But of course you know this, as I have read your writings on the second Adam.

Are you denying that Christ came in the flesh..?

 

[childeye]

Are you denying that Christ came in the flesh..?

No of course I am not. The Word was made flesh. How else do you suppose I said Christ Jesus is the True Image of the invisible God sent to men so that they might believe?

 

[Eventide]

No of course I am not.

Well then we have a problem in Houston.. your original comment was that Esau was carnal simply because he was the firstborn.. and we know that Christ is the firstborn... and not only that.. do you expect me to believe that EVERY firstborn will be carnal ?

 

[childeye]

Well then we have a problem in Houston.. your original comment was that Esau was carnal simply because he was the firstborn.. and we know that Christ is the firstborn... and not only that.. do you expect me to believe that EVERY firstborn will be carnal ?

No, Jesus was the second Adam so it is he calls himself also the son of man. The term firstborn applied to the order of existence

 

[Eventide]

No, Jesus was the second Adam so it is he calls himself also the son of man. The term firstborn applied to the order of existence

Technically, Jesus is not the second Adam.. He is the LAST Adam and the second man.. although regardless of that, He is the firstborn to Joseph and Mary.. and again.. do you expect me to believe that people are carnal because they're the firstborn.. the reason you believe for Esau's carnality ?

 

[childeye]

Technically, Jesus is not the second Adam.. He is the LAST Adam and the second man.. although regardless of that, He is the firstborn to Joseph and Mary.. and again.. do you expect me to believe that people are carnal because they're the firstborn.. the reason you believe for Esau's carnality ?

Jesus is begotten not made. Regardless, as pertains to the order of their existence as men, Jesus came after Adam. It is unarguable that the first born must learn to share everything with those who come after. They therefore have a perspective that has a greater propensity to begrudge such sharing more than their siblings. This does not mean that all firstborn are carnal forever, nor does it mean that siblings are not carnal at all. Please read my posts under general talk\ Is it possible to have a successful marriage without a leader thread\ Posts #13 and #14.

 

[Eventide]

Jesus is begotten not made. Regardless, as pertains to the order of their existence as men, Jesus came after Adam. It is unarguable that the first born must learn to share everything with those who come after. They therefore have a perspective that has a greater propensity to begrudge such sharing more than their siblings. This does not mean that all firstborn are carnal forever, nor does it mean that siblings are not carnal at all. Please read my posts under general talk\ Is it possible to have a successful marriage without a leader thread\ Posts #13 and #14.

So regardless of the facts of scripture which tell us that Esau was godless, and profane, and that he sold his birthright to satisfy his flesh.. you would contend that this means nothing and that the only reason for his carnality was that he was born first ?

 

[childeye]

So regardless of the facts of scripture which tell us that Esau was godless, and profane, and that he sold his birthright to satisfy his flesh.. you would contend that this means nothing and that the only reason for his carnality was that he was born first ?

To be godless is to be carnal Eventide just as to be Godly is to be spiritual. Did you read my posts?

 

[Eventide]

To be godless is to be carnal Eventide just as to be Godly is to be spiritual. Did you read my posts?

You're obviously not willing to answer my simple question.. and that's fine.. I'm simply curious. You made a statement that the reason for Esau's carnality was simply because he was born first..

SO.. Do we disregard scriptural facts (as mentioned) and chaulk up Esau's carnality to his being born first, as you suggested ?

 

[childeye]

You're obviously not willing to answer my simple question.. and that's fine.. I'm simply curious. You made a statement that the reason for Esau's carnality was simply because he was born first..

SO.. Do we disregard scriptural facts (as mentioned) and chaulk up Esau's carnality to his being born first, as you suggested ?

You don't have to chalk up anything if you don't want to. It is a scriptural fact that Esau was firstborn. Perhaps we should be discussing what makes a carnal mind think the way it does, which is my point about the firstborn symbolically. For Satan was the son of the morning, full of pride and became vain. I certainly don't think it is wise to chalk it up to freewill.

 

[Eventide]

You don't have to chalk up anything if you don't want to.

I know that.. I'm simply following the logic of your comment.. that anyone who is firstborn ends up being carnal, like your reason for Esau being carnal..

It is a scriptural fact that Esau was firstborn.

Why do you make it sound as though I wouldn't agree with this.. this has nothing to do with it.. what I'm trying to understand is your BASIS for saying that Esau was carnal.. and you said that it's because he was born first.. I then asked if we should ignore what the scriptural facts are with respect to Esau and simply chaulk it up to his being firstborn.. ?

Perhaps we should come to understand what makes a carnal mind think the way it does, which is my point about the firstborn symbolically. I certainly don't think it is wise to chalk it up to freewill.

I think the reason for Esau's condition is precisely because of what HE DID.. iow.. he SOLD his birthright to satisfy his flesh.. not because he didn't have a choice in the matter.