Freewill religion ! - Part 2

[Randy]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

God's Desire thwarted ! Blasphemy !

1 Tim 2:4

4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

The word will here is the greek word thelō:


to will, have in mind, intend

a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose

b) to desire, to wish

c) to love

1) to like to do a thing, be fond of doing

d) to take delight in, have pleasure


The ESV 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Now, how can it be that those Almighty God desires to be saved, and to come into the knowledge of the Truth, that the all will not be saved and come into the knowledge of the Truth, when God says here Isa 14:24

24 The Lord of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand:

The word thought means here:

to imagine, think, to purpose !

The word purposed here means:

an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.

to advise, consult, give counsel, counsel, purpose, devise, plan

He says of them, so shall it come to pass and so shall it stand !

Also in light of Ps 33:11

11 The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.

The thoughts of His Heart or the desires of His Heart, surely 1 Tim 2:4 speaks of a desire of God's Heart.

Now even in some men the promise is Ps 37:4

4 Delight thyself also in the Lord: and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart.

And yet some would deny that God gives or performs for Himself His Own Hearts desires !

Finally Job 23:13

13 But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth.

13 Yet he is in one mind, and who can turn him? yea, he doeth what his mind desireth.

Surely 1 Tim 2:4 tells us what His Mind desires there. Now if this be True, and God does not perform it, then He is not acting according to who He is. He is being less than God. If every single individual man of 1 Tim 2:4 that God desires to be saved and come into the knowledge of the Truth is not, then God's desire was thwarted ! And to say or admit that in any kind of way is Blasphemy in the Highest !

Well for those of us who hold to freewill we would state many after the life of the body have "regret" for the choices that they made. Thats why its called freewill. A "loving" Gods desire would be to bless not punish. Thats not blasphemy. God is Love.

Those that listen and learn from the Father go to the Son and He will raise them up on the last day. (That is the Fathers Will)

R.

 

[Messenger]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

God's Desire thwarted ! Blasphemy !

1 Tim 2:4

4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

The word will here is the greek word thelō:


to will, have in mind, intend

a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose

b) to desire, to wish

c) to love

1) to like to do a thing, be fond of doing

d) to take delight in, have pleasure


The ESV 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Now, how can it be that those Almighty God desires to be saved, and to come into the knowledge of the Truth, that the all will not be saved and come into the knowledge of the Truth, when God says here Isa 14:24

24 The Lord of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand:

The word thought means here:

to imagine, think, to purpose !

The word purposed here means:

an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.

to advise, consult, give counsel, counsel, purpose, devise, plan

He says of them, so shall it come to pass and so shall it stand !

Also in light of Ps 33:11

11 The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.

The thoughts of His Heart or the desires of His Heart, surely 1 Tim 2:4 speaks of a desire of God's Heart.

Now even in some men the promise is Ps 37:4

4 Delight thyself also in the Lord: and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart.

And yet some would deny that God gives or performs for Himself His Own Hearts desires !

Finally Job 23:13

13 But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth.

13 Yet he is in one mind, and who can turn him? yea, he doeth what his mind desireth.

Surely 1 Tim 2:4 tells us what His Mind desires there. Now if this be True, and God does not perform it, then He is not acting according to who He is. He is being less than God. If every single individual man of 1 Tim 2:4 that God desires to be saved and come into the knowledge of the Truth is not, then God's desire was thwarted ! And to say or admit that in any kind of way is Blasphemy in the Highest !

Amen. It is indeed the highest blasphemy. All throughout His Word, God speaks of His Perfect Will being accomplished in all His creation. Yet mankind insists their power to choose what is their will can override God's! (Rom. 9:18-24)

If God desired that all men without exception would be saved, then all men without exception would be saved because God's will is perfect : Sovereign God always does exactly as He says! (James 1:17 ; Heb. 13:8; Mal. 3:6: Isaiah 46:10.

So then, 1Timothy 2:4 cannot be referring to every individual becoming saved, because we know that the rest of the Bible clearly speaks of a day when God will bring horrific judgement (Malachi 4:1; Prov. 16:5,18) upon those of mankind whom He has appointed to unto His wrath (Rom. 1:18). And that there is a remnant of mankind, His elect people, which have not been appointed unto His wrath
(1 Thes. 5:9; Acts 13:48).

Both groups have been pre-determined (a fixed number) before God even created the world.
(1 Cor 2:7; 2 Tim 1:9).

Eph 1:4-6 According as He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein He hath made us accepted in the beloved.

Predestinate; S4309; proorizo: 1) to predetermine; decide beforehand; decreeing from eternity; to foreordain, appoint beforehand.

But, the "all men" of 1 Tim 2:4 speaks of peoples or nations (Rev. 7:9); or all sorts of people, Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 3:29), from which God has chosen and predestined a people for Himself; He gave Himself a ransom for many : the "all" of the "many" :

Mat. 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. Mark 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

God has predetermined that His people will be redeemed from their sins (Mat. 1:21), and the rest are under God's wrath (Prov. 16:4).

TGBTG!

 

[savedbygrace57]

The question of the ages ? 2


Is God just in this ? God made all the wicked for a specific purpose to carrie out wickedness according to His set purpose. Prov 16:4 ! This is wickedness that He predetermined they willfully do, without any possibility of them not doing it, and not being accountable for for doing it, then to be justly punished for doing it. This is True of all whom God made as vessels of wrath, which He gives them physical life in order to fit them unto Eternal Destruction Rom 9:22

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

That word destruction means to be damnable 2 Pet 2:1 and also Perdition as in 2 Pet 3:7

But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Those ungodly men are all the vessels of wrath, God Created them to fit them for Perdition !

And understand this, the what if here in Rom 9:22 does not mean that its merely a possible if, or that God can or cannot do this, but it means, so what, like as in so what is to you that God hath done such a thing, for its nothing that can be done about it. Or

22 And the same is true of what God has done. He wanted to show his anger and to make his power known. But he was very patient in enduring those who were the objects of his anger, who were doomed to destruction.

The point being is that all the vessels of wrath He made are just like it was with The pharaoh, in that his God given purpose for having being, was for God to raise him up, that God would show His Power in him, hence fitting him to be justly punished for doing just what God raised him up to do, and that God would harden his heart in disobedience, so that he would be fitted for his perdition.

This was not only true of the pharaoh, but the same Divine way is seen here Deut 2:30

30 But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the Lord thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day.

Now who hardened this kings spirit ? Who made his heart obstinate ? That word obstinate means God made him strong in stubbornness. And why ? For their just destruction into the hands of Israel.

You see, if God was so pleased to, He very well could have turned the Kings heart to let the People pass by him, for it is written Prov 21:1

The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord; as the rivers of water, He turneth it whithersoever He will.See Ezra 6:22 to this point also !580

 

[savedbygrace57]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

randy

Thats why its called freewill.

Where is that in the scripture ? I never seen it before. Also you believe that God desired something and did not perform it ? That is not the God of scripture. Job 23:13

13 But he[God] is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

messenger

If God desired that all men without exception would be saved, then all men
without exception would be saved because God's will is perfect : Sovereign God
always does exactly as He says! (James 1:17 ; Heb. 13:8; Mal. 3:6: Isaiah
46:10.

Exactly Job 23:13

13 But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth.

That word soul means for God:

activity of mind


h) activity of the will

Whatever His will desires, wants, wish for, that He does or performs, effects, brings about.

 

[JohnD]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin !

This is why I believe this is True !

2 Thess 2:1-4

1Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Isa 14:13-14

13For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:


I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Man's own freewill by far is the most believed and popular religious conviction throughout the whole world. Rev 13:1;5-8

1And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

5And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

6And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

7And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

8And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

It's adherents are linked to all the various denominations, and sects, yes, even the non religious adhere to man's freewill.

So John writes Rev 13:16

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

That is all follow this deadly concept or philosophy of man's freewill !

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]36931[/split] by savedbygrace57 Titled Freewill religion is the Man of Sin !

I frankly do not understand how this profile of the antichrist refutes freewill in mankind.

This is to compare Christ with antichrist or more to the Hebrew Messiah with false messiah which the true Messiah made the case for in:

John 5:43 (KJV)
43 I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.


The word "if" (ean in the Greek) can be translated "though" and no English translation picks up on that...


I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: THOUGH another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.


The scripture testifies prophetically to the submission of the true Messiah to the Father while the false messiah is all about "me."


And the teachings of the Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians (he is actually quoiting prophecy in the OT) is about the false messiah to come.



Which always amazes me how Paul was confident to teach a fledgling Church before the NT was even canonized about the end time eschatology while today most Churches will not touch the subject with a ten foot pole.



Well you know... Revelation is hard to understand... no it's not if you translate it with the tutelage of the Holy Spirit who shows the symbols and symbolism is explained elsewhere in scripture...


Well you know... so many disagree on what the end will be like... so mob rule determines truth?


I am sure God is quite sick of the excuses believers hide behind today not to know what we have a clearer depiction of in scripture than most believers have had through most of history.


What scares the stuffing out of me is the principle to whom much is given much is required...

 

[JohnD]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin !

The age-old formula for misinterpretation is:

1. focus strictly on a portion of scripture
2. frame the argument two be only two-sided
3. consider no other alternatives
4. do not consider the omnipotence or omniscience of God

And there you have the perimeters of the debate between Calvin and Arminius.

And the only way you'll ever see either side agree with the other is when someone tries to tell them there are other alternatives. LOL

All scriptures regarding God's foreknowledge of who will believe and who won't have to include the explanation of both the sovereignty of God and the freewill of man...

John 3:16-18 (NASB95)
16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
17 “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
18 “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


The sovereign Lord gave man limited sovereignty within the purview of his sovereignty to give man a choice which he in his omniscience knew before time began. John 3:16-18 is the predetermination of the result of the genuine choices of man.

And TULIPS or poot-blossoms are merely intricate forms or argumentation (the traditions of man) filled with endless rabbit trails... if you really want to chase your tail round and round like that, do it in a debate over macro-evolution those guys have created libraries and schools of thought to try to argue evolution against all scripture, and scientific evidence.

Never underestimate the human ability and passion to believe what they want to believe despite the facts.

 

[ezra]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin !

[/QUOTE] I frankly do not understand how this profile of the antichrist refutes freewill in mankind. [/QUOTE] in a nut shell his is obsessed with Calvinism doctrine ..any one out side that circle is wrong

 

[JohnD]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin !

duplicate...

 

[Deborah13]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

messenger

If God desired that all men without exception would be saved, then all men
without exception would be saved because God's will is perfect : Sovereign God
always does exactly as He says! (James 1:17 ; Heb. 13:8; Mal. 3:6: Isaiah
46:10.

Exactly Job 23:13

13 But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth.

That word soul means for God:

activity of mind


h) activity of the will

Whatever His will desires, wants, wish for, that He does or performs, effects, brings about.

"Whatever His will desires, wants, wish for, that He does or performs, effects, brings about."

I most hardly agree. Including that His children would come to love Him of their own free will. That they determine in their hearts, that their Father in heaven is a loving, kind, merciful, all powerful, God and worthy of their worship, love, and faithfulness.

Somehow I just can't see our God, as a weak and insecure God, who must assure Himself of victory by playing chess against Himself.

 

[savedbygrace57]

The question of the ages ? 3

Now that is how God fits the wicked, the vessels of wrath for destruction, that is by hardening them in a life long state of disobedience, hence they are the children of disobedience, and thats all they will ever be, determined so by God Himself, appointed to disobedience like the jews 1 Pet 2:8

And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. The word appointed here is the same word used in 1 Thess 5:9

For God hath not appointed us[The Elect] to wrath[as some are], but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

Now some may say that even believers were once the children of disobedience and point to Eph 2:2, but that's false. They were once disobedient [Titus 3:3], and once walked as the children of disobedience doth walk as Per Eph 2:3

Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

But that being true, they are never the children of disobedience, though by nature they are very disobedient to God their Father, and do walk according to the same spirit, the prince of the power of the air, and they are just as worthy of wrath for their vile behavior, but all that said, they are still the Children of God, the Sons of God, not the Children of disobedience. God is still there Father even while in that state, just as the prodigal son was still the beloved son of his Father while in a state unbridled alienation, for he was never truly one of those citizens he hired himself out to be one of Lk 15:15

15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.

Those citizens are the true children of disobedience ! But back to the point at hand, and that is God is Just in making for the purpose of eternally punishing them for their sins, that is for sin that He purposed for them to do; and it matters not if we question God's Justice for doing so, and so submit to you Paul's answer if you do Rom 9:20

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

And such as do question God for this, they do show an attitude of rebellion against the True God !581

 

[n2thelight]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

Savedbygrace,you really have a very bad misunderstanding of who the Elect are.....ALL have a choice in accepting Christ,and it's not only the Elect that shall be saved...The purpose of the Elect is to fulfill the plan of God,and to help other's to come to the light......

 

[About the Son of God]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

Actually, that's a common misinterpretation of Roman 3:10.
Paul is quoting psalm #14, and note carefully it is the fool who says (unqualified) that there is not one who does good.

Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Could we say that the atheist or fool has said "There is no God", but as Romans 3:23 says: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God?

Romans 3:23 "all" of what? Notice, Paul doesn't tell us. We have to make an inference; and this is a very subtle issue....

The Holy Spirit "inspired" Paul to write these things down, but we are not guaranteed that Paul understood everything *perfectly* himself; (yet we will agree he could not write an error!)

What I am trying to say -- is that, when Peter says "Paul writes in his wisdom" things hard to understand, that Paul's own thinking uninspired by God (and his past imperfect learning) does affect the general flow of his inspired writing (It's difficulty); yet nothing he says can be *actually* wrong. So, we are left in a position where we can't assume that the general feeling of the writing is sufficient to fill in a technical gap of inspiration correctly. We have to "cross" examine everything.

So, Paul wrote "all" have "fallen short"; But he doesn't say all of "who" -- and we know he doesn't include him who is "the glory of an Only Son"; So the word "all" is not rigidly correct.

Often authors intend us to understand a representative of a group to stand for the whole. For example, if we suppose there are two groups having two people each; Group A -- and Group B; One person in Group A robbed a bank and has stolen money, no other person does.

IN such a case, if someone belonging to group B came up and said "we have no sin(stolen money)" it would be correct; but if *any* member of group A tried to say that -- they are a liar.

Paul's writing depends heavily on exactly how he intends to define the groups.

Second point:

In context, Romans 3:19 is translated "all the world may become guilty before God"; or if translated a little more carefully, I have seen other translators say "brought to trial" or "liable" (upo-dikos) and they will not write "guilty". ( I haven't exhaustively studied this word yet; but it could even be subjunctive. )

The problem is, Romans 3:23, is not based on a guaranteed conviction of every individual -- but upon the trial of a group; Paul didn't actually say "every single man" broke the law.

Now -- I am going to say something, here, to prevent a misunderstanding; I do not believe it is *possible* for a man to live their life on their own without committing sin on their own.
And I mean this as true from the day of Adam until the end of all worlds; but I don't hold that a man can't live their whole life without committing a sin -- either before or after Jesus the Christ; but they must in fact be helped by God to do so.

Before becoming the righteousness of God in Christ what good work could any do (2 Corinthians 5:21)?

I'm not sure I understand the question;
Many people, before knowing Jesus Christ, do good works -- it's called "common grace" by Calvinists like Matt Slick, etc.. Before, faith, man can't do good works which endure, nor which rise to a special level called "pleasing to God".

1 John 3:2 "Beloved, now are we the sons of God . ." Maybe I'm misunderstanding your thought, but before we received Christ were we better than others of the world? Thanks?

There has to be some misunderstanding; I either forgot what I said -- or you've missed it. Lets try again?

 

[Eugene]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

we are not guaranteed that Paul understood everything *perfectly* himself; . . . Paul's own thinking uninspired by God

You lost me completely. 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God . .

Galatians 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

Galatians 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

If Paul thought differently or he did say something not revealed we see him admit it.

1 Corinthians 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

1 Corinthians 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord,

1 Corinthians 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:

Summation: When righteousness is by faith unto all that believe there appears to be a difference between them and those that don't; faith is the victory that overcomes the world as the hymn puts it, else they remain in sin and short of the glory of God.

Romans 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God

 

[About the Son of God]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

The Father can say the same thing "all that I have is thine" to each an every child of His. The things of God are not temporal but eternal.

They are both, aren't they? I mean, the whole universe is his.

Can there ever be not enough of the Holy Spirit to go around? Can Jesus' blood ever run out or is it sufficient for all who call on His name?

Unequivocally, no. Rhetoric accepted.

In the story of the fish and the loaves, it never ran out. All ate until they were satisfied and there was still 12 basketful left.
In the wilderness, the manna from heaven was supplied with more than enough and some left over, each day.

Very true. And even one basket for Judas.

I cannot think of anything that ring could mean except the family seal and the authority of the name of Christ. "Father, in Jesus name, I pray."

But that's exactly why I brought up the authority being given in Matthew 20:23; for it's not about thrones in this world -- it is, as it says:
Matth 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

But there are not enough places such that both James AND John would sit at his right AND his left -- and we are speaking about heaven, here; and we are speaking about people (the non-Iscarot's of the twelve) of whom I think everyone agrees were saved.

I think @gr8grace is seeing it the way I did too, before your post and my Yike! I saw that he was his Father.s son (saved), backslid, then restored in fellowship. Not losing his salvation at any time. Most people I think do see him as already saved when the story begins. Some think he stayed saved, some that he lost his salvation then returned and his salvation was restored. But then I'm sure you know this.

Yes.
And we could go through each of those scenarios one at a time, and there would be much fruit in discussing those (potential) tangents...

I didn't intend to derail the thread into a discussion on the ring; other than to note that we don't have any certainty about what it means -- we only can speculate; but in your own words -- your attraction to the interpretation is that you "don't know what else it can mean"? (I hope I quoted that right.)

Rings of various kinds were often worn as signs of being a slave, or authority over slaves, or even citizenship (in Rome): such as (Iron) citizen, thin gold (slave master), wide gold (senators/officials).

Notably; the story is only in Luke who wrote primarily to Gentiles (Theophilous) and he doesn't even specify the metal, let alone the size.
All we know is that Luke only talks about "hired" workers, until the sentence where the father calls the slaves (not hired workers) to bring him a ring.
So, my point is merely that it's an extremely tenuous piece of evidence to be determining the exact nature of the restoration with.

There are also (wisdom) psychological reasons that the Father ought not treat his son badly; lest he send a message to the slaves that the master's family is no better than them -- for if they can despise the son, they can despise the father; and what will the neighbors say? etc.

"Jacob I have loved, Esau have I hated" Covenants. "Not of works, but by the call of God into His covenant of grace provided by Jesus on the cross."

Do a word search on "hate" (I can concordance it for you in Greek if it will help), as it is used in scripture. eg: "God hates nothing he has made."

It's an interesting translational choice; perhaps "loved less" would be more accurate? or "separated" out of self defense?

For, if after one has faith -- they sin, predestination holders will usually say they aren't lost (dead.).

Not all people who believe that once someone is saved, they can't lose their salvation also believe in the Calvinist view of predestination. Especially not a hyper one.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that all OSAS are Calvinist! I didn't mean that!

What I hear him saying is I am a servant and I have never neglected to DO thy commandment. So I see that one can be found guilty of sin because of neglect. Jesus told the Pharisees that they were correct in all the things they were doing but they had neglected to do the most important things of mercy, etc.
Do we neglect to love as God has called us to do?

I lost your thought a little, here, I'll think about it (time to get kids now, gotta run!) and come back to it later.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Something to say about freewill !

Something to say about freewill and responsibility or accountability. When its denied that man has not freewill, that means that mans will is always under the Sovereign control of God doing whatever God has purposed it to do; Thats not to say that man does not have the rational ability and wherewithal to make a decision involving what is right and what is wrong and to be held accountable or responsible for the same.

However though, that moral choice that we make rationally and deliberately through our thought process of the mind or lack of it was determined by God and the choice made only conforms to what God determined to be done by us.

To explain further, God in His Eternal Purpose, subjected man or adam unto vanity Rom 8:20, for if that had not been the case, man would not have yielded to temptation of the serpent, but man and creation by him were made subject, not willingly, meaning, they had no choice in the matter. That is Adam had no choice in the matter of God's Purpose determining that he would responsibly sin in order to bring about the subjecting creation to vanity, sin and death.

Now its summed really well here in Prov 19:21

21 There are many devices in a man’s heart; nevertheless the counsel or purpose of the Lord, that shall stand.

Many plans are in a man’s heart,
but the Lord’s decree will prevail.

So adam's sin and anyone else for that matter, does not dismiss volitional responsibility and accountability, even though the act or choice could only be made according to God's decree of determination ! And of course by saying this we can expect to get the response as Paul did with the same truth of God Rom 9:19

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

That word will means purpose or counsel as in Prov 19:21 ! Who has successfully stood against His Purpose or Counsel ????

It cannot be done.

So we do God's will of purpose at all times, whether our deliberate choices be good or evil !

 

[About the Son of God]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

we are not guaranteed that Paul understood everything *perfectly* himself; . . . Paul's own thinking uninspired by God

You lost me completely. 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God . .

You just proved my basic point; The word "ALL" is a problem; for "all" scripture is given by inspiration of God ; and yet, sometimes scripture has opinions from Paul which aren't directly inspired (dictated inspiration).

eg : do you not agree that Paul's opinions are in scripture, and do not cease to be scripture just because Paul qualified it as his own statement?

If so -- clearly "ALL" doesn't mean every word -- even by your standard -- but it means a representative group of words.

And as an aside, in context of 2Timothy 3:16, there is a logistic problem with determining what Paul meant because he clearly said scripture that Timothy had known since he was a "child"; Timothy's age, as an adult, rivals that of Paul; Paul said to not lay hands on those who had not already had a family well ordered; When looking at Timothy, notice that Paul was teaching from the scriptures Timothy knew as a child -- eg:look for yourself -- 2Timoth 3:8.
(The old testament).

It's not a point that I care to dispute, I am merely pointing out the problem because it's instructive exegesis; I will simply agree, without proof, that all of Paul's writings are indeed profitable for the same things as the O.T. ; hence either INSPIRIATION made his writing protected from error beyond what he wrote knowingly -- or else, Timothy does not guarantee the inspiration of Paul's writing in total is a word for word writing from God alone.

Either way, my point is made. We have problems when understanding Paul because of HOW he wrote.

Galatians 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Galatians 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

If Paul thought differently or he did say something not revealed we see him admit it.

Whence do you have this certainty?
Besides: Paul's epistles to the Romans, et. all; those aren't strictly "gospels"; that's why they are labeled "epistle"; Now: Reread your quotes.
In Pauls writings, there are parts directly from Jesus the Christ as his words and that which he taught (gospel) -- but there are *large* parts which are found in no other book of the bible, and are CLEARLY not DEDUCIBLE from the Gospels; but which are proofs -- that's important, for "proof" is "wisdom" writing. It is precisely Paul's Wisdom, which is *sometimes* hard to understand.

So: How do we exclude other possibilities about the exact source of the wisdom?
Eg: how do we know when it is his "learning" (wisdom) indirectly from God -- learned as a Pharisee lawyer under Gamiliel; and when his writing is direct dictation from God by direct revelation (word for word)?

I'm trying to show that for inerrency to be true; it is only necessary that in places where hypothetical wisdom from Paul (not directly inspired dictationally) is correct doctrine. That's different from whether or not he understood it perfectly, or whether or not he wrote it in the best way possible for all to understand.

1 Corinthians 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
1 Corinthians 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord,
1 Corinthians 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:

And again, I remind you, all of these are quotes from scripture; and clearly they are not part of the Gospel of Jesus the Christ... but Paul's OWN opinion.
It's *precisely* because he CAN SOMETIMES write things in scripture that aren't from the Lord, that I can say that merely being in scripture is insufficient proof from you that writings of Paul not explicitly marked as his own wisdom -- aren't. eg: Paul's can make inferences which may be things he only knew "DARKLY AS IN A MIRROR.", and did not understand well enough to write correctly EXCEPT that the Holy Spirit prevented him from writing an error in spite of his partial ignorance; Mysteries are partially known.

Summation: When righteousness is by faith unto all that believe there appears to be a difference between them and those that don't; faith is the victory that overcomes the world as the hymn puts it, else they remain in sin and short of the glory of God.

Yes, it really does appear so -- but sin isn't always transgression. There's a distinction I have been trying to make.

Sin is the absence of that which ought to be; The absence can come about by doing something wrong, choosing NOT to do the right (also sometimes a transgression because the doing is a command of law), and also by simply not having what one ought to have been *given* but which could not be received because the giver lost the gift (eg: Adam is one such giver.)

Hence, he who had no sin -- by "emptying" himself -- became sin. Not that he sinned (an act of transgression), but that he suddenly lacked (also a sin) in order to become one of us. ( This is the main problem with Glory only theology coming from SavedByGrace57. God can choose not to fore-ordain, for God is *CAPABLE* of emptying himself. )

It's also very important to note that not all "sin" is deadly:
1John 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

Side Note, there is no indefinite article in Greek; the "a sin unto death" is indistinguishable from "sin unto death". The "a" is the interpreters interpolation and can be misleading.

my emphasis follows:

Romans 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God

You're now in the same trouble with "all" I was originally talking about; There is no specification of what or whom it applies to.

Is the problem becoming more clear?

I'm telling you the truth, it really *IS* difficult to understand some of Paul's writing, for we *have* no choice here but to attempt to determine what "all" applies to.
Eg: "all" might be thought to apply to every individual man; or perhaps Paul was speaking of nations and their laws primarily, and man as a subset only secondarily;

Do you see that there is no way to prove the point from the one sentence ?

I don't wish to go too much further along this line of thought regarding the inspiration of scripture; it's starting to diverge from "free" will; so I will try to limit it to this post as much as possible.

I'm just going to say that it's a subtle point, I'm certain that what Peter says of Paul is not just regarding Paul's own opinions -- for, Paul's opinions can't cause a person to be destroyed; Therefore the points *MUST* pertain to what Paul wrote about salvation itself.

2Pete 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pete 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them (plural) of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

In none of the canonical Gospels is the universality of sin to death spoken of; this is strictly from Paul and his wisdom, and not shared by the others (Romans 5:12 is the true pinacle of this issue.); This is something that we are not told is direct dictation from God (word for word) -- but it clearly *IS* wisdom from Paul; (eg: inspired, but heterogeneously: eg: with dictation and "correct" mentoring interspersed.)

A teacher may correct a students work without choosing every word of that work; thereby guaranteeing correctness -- but leaving the marks of the student. Paul is a disciple, and a student.

In any event, we have to be careful to look at what Paul actually wrote -- and STUDY it technically, and very closely, and very LAWYERLY; "Cross" examine it. Paul as a lawyer would SURELY expect us to be doing that -- rather than reading it as an easy novel. There are things which he knew only Darkly as in a Mirror, so we have no guarantee that he was always aware of every detail of what he wrote -- even when he doesn't tell us explicitly that something is missing in this sentence or another.

 

[Eugene]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin !

It is precisely Paul's Wisdom, which is *sometimes* hard to understand.

Well I'd certainly get to understanding it for it is that we will be judged by, and Paul does call it a gospel. Romans 2:16.

In none of the canonical Gospels is the universality of sin to death spoken of; this is strictly from Paul and his wisdom, and not shared by the others (Romans 5:12 is the true pinacle of this issue.); This is something that we are not told is direct dictation from God (word for word)

If not specified, it was established even with Moses; he and Aaron personally experienced it.

I believe the thing we're not bringing out is the fact Paul was given a mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations (Colossians 1:26); undoubtedly it was hard for Peter and others to understand. Acts 10:45 "And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." Astonished?

 

[About the Son of God]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin !

Quote Originally Posted by About the Son of God View Post It is precisely Paul's Wisdom, which is *sometimes* hard to understand. Well I'd certainly get to understanding it for it is that we will be judged by, and Paul does call it a gospel. Romans 2:16.

I was aware of Romans 2:16 when I made the statement; But that sentence says his Gospel is that God shall judge the secrets of men; I don't see that Paul is saying Romans as a whole is some kind of Gospel. We are told in the canonical Gospels that God will judge even the secrets of men; so that particular point is Gospel -- I'll concede.

To be clear:
I don't deny that Paul has parts of his Gospel in his epistles -- but the epistles themselves aren't the Gospel. Or else, why has no one in over 2000 years labeled them as Gospels?

If not specified, it was established even with Moses; he and Aaron personally experienced it. I believe the thing we're not bringing out is the fact Paul was given a mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations (Colossians 1:26); undoubtedly it was hard for Peter and others to understand. Acts 10:45 "And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." Astonished?

That's an interesting thought...

Do do you mean that passage in Peter somehow refers one point alone?
I don't see how you would arrive at that conclusion, so perhaps I misunderstood?
The passage in Peter specifically states that the difficulty is in all of Pauls writings, not just one ... and the circumcision debacle isn't in all of them, is it? (I've never checked... but I would be astonished if it were.)

Also; Peter was astonished, but that doesn't mean it was hard to understand -- for I can be astonished at a trivial matter that I simply never thought about; Consider a table board game that had a flaw in the rules; the first time it is exploited by an opponent I would be *very* astonished -- but that doesn't mean it is difficult to understand -- rather it means unexpected.

God did prophesy through Joel that he would pour out his spirit on (gasp) "all" flesh.
So, to repeat a point in case; Peter, too, had trouble figuring out what "all" applied to? for once it happened, he immediately realized "all" meant more than he thought -- Yet -- clearly it still wasn't *every* single person who had the tongues.
And it was Peter who immediately understood the ramifications of the event, and defended it in the controversy with those of the circumcision (Christian) party.

Secondly, I agree at least that everyone, including Moses, from Adam forward has experienced the universiality of sin (depravation) -- but not of transgression. Not all individuals sin before they die, or else babies in the womb as Esau and Jacob would have had to transgress the law; which Paul specifically says they could not have done -- esp: when it comes to "election".

I mean, I can't believe that a child in the womb could have committed any of the sins we see in Romans 1:23 - 1:31; even coupled with those of Romans 2:21-24 -- let alone every single person below the age of 18. (and they often died young back then.).

For look at Romans 2:1 -- where Paul makes it clear that he is speaking about men who judge others who do "the same things" as they.

So, free will or not; what is the scope of the words "all have sinned"?
Since some do not commit these sins -- aren't some excused ?
Romans 2:6 -- "who will render to *every* man, according to *his* deeds" ? (Romans 2:15 -- excusing each other).

So, there are very strong contextual problems with which sinners Paul is thinking of by the time he reaches Romans 3:10-18 which we already discussed in part.

So how do we interpret Romans 3:19-20 unequivocally? -- for there are serious questions such as a child could be too young to be technically "under the law" eg: people such as Paul (a *murderer*) claims to have been "alive" before the law "came" ?
Or is a child born under the law by the very fact they must be circumcised on the eighth day, or else they are "CUT OFF" from their people? (yet if that is the only law, it's fulfilled by most Jews.)

So: Given the list of sins Paul is talking about -- it seems he may have in mind the righteousness obtainable by murderers and other *severe* sinners who deserved death under the law; but is not considering any other people who have sins "not unto death".

My personal experience of sin rose to absolutely none of the sins contextually listed in Romans from 1:1 through 3:20 during my childhood years -- all the way to puberty; (I'll stop there, for I wish to include many others who are like me pre-puberty but fell later in life to the more common sexual sins.)

So contextually, it's very hard for me to understand how Romans 3:20 could even possibly apply to me... I have to assume (without proof) that the "all" found in Romans 3:23 somehow applies to me without Paul specifying how that could definitely be so.

Let me sum up:
The danger of the fool is that he judges unconditionally that every person is evil; and we are warned that "as you judge" you will be judged. That is the point of Romans 2:3 -- if we judge someone of sin, we will be judged on the *same* standard;

Hence, I think the wiser choice is to not judge *unconditionally* every individual as having sin guilt; for even if I am somehow "wrong" -- none the less, I am free from being judged on the basis of "all" having sin unconditionally.

I'm attempting to follow the example of John, who demands that Christians admit that as a group they have "sin" (we) but does not stoop to the singling out of every Christian in the group. He is careful how he states the case.

 

[Deborah13]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin !

Hence, I think the wiser choice is to not judge *unconditionally* every individual as having sin guilt; for even if I am somehow "wrong" -- none the less, I am free from being judged on the basis of "all" having sin unconditionally.

I'm attempting to follow the example of John, who demands that Christians admit that as a group they have "sin" (we) but does not stoop to the singling out of every Christian in the group. He is careful how he states the case.

Personally, I have taken Paul's and other scripture "none are righteous" to mean that none obtain the righteousness of Jesus Christ.