Freewill religion ! - Part 2

[About the Son of God]

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

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

I took it that way at one time; and although I agree that in a general sense that people do not automatically obtain the righteousness of Christ; I simply can't guarantee that every *individual* is incapable from Paul's comment in Romans 3:10; eg: because it's a quote of a psalm (as Paul explicitly tells us these things are known to us from the law eg: Romans 3:19.)

But this "none are righteous" quote is *only* found in the psalms and those psalms also tell us that "God is with the righteous" eg: Psalm 14:5.
Psalm 14 is so important in the Jewish mindset that it actually exists twice; The exact same ideas and nearly the same wording are found in Psalm 53.

However -- In psalm 53, it refers to "back sliders" ( Psalm 53:3) who have "become" (not always were) filfthly -- and who "eat up my people" (psalm 53:4) meaning they are not his people.

In my understanding -- no one can earn the righteousness of Christ; and there are scriptures which explain why -- but that is as far as I have thought it through.

Is there a particular reason you find it necessary to interpret Romans in the stronger way ?

There are, to be sure, many passages being quoted there by Paul which are not in the Psalm(s);
If I recall correctly, we the total list is Psalm 10:7, Proverbs 1:16, Isaiah 59:7-8, and Psalm 35, or maybe 36 (I'll let you find it.)

So,all the quotes are directly from the law according to the Pharisees (for the Psalms are actually prophets, but the prophets are called "their" law by Jesus when speaking about Pharisees.);

Is there, in any of these other quotes, a more generic reason you come to your decision ?

 

[Deborah13]

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

So,all the quotes are directly from the law as understood by the Pharisees (for the Psalms are actually prophets, but the prophets are "their" law as Jesus calls it when speaking about Pharisees.); is there something in these other quotes which is universal, rather than specific ?

I only can make a short comment at this time. I think that God was talking about people with the nation of Israel. Clearly outside the nation they did not have these laws. God declares people in the OT righteous in the things that they are doing in following Him. Others not.

I do not think that God declares ALL people evil and incapable of doing good. He says that even the heathen do things that are good just from the natural sense, conscience, is my interpretation. Such as caring for their family.
It is only when we address the righteousness that is required for the salvation of the soul that we see that these works will be burnt up. So what is left?
Who's name were things works done in, our own? Then we have received our reward here on earth.
"Some people would be willing to give their life for a friend, but who gives their life for their enemy?" paraphrase

 

[About the Son of God]

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

Deborah,
Well said! Excellent.

One thing to ponder; Even though the nations outside Israel do not have these "laws" -- Paul doesn't say that just any arbitrary law is acceptable; rather, he says they are a law when they do what "the" law requires. Romans 2:14

There's an open question there in my mind about the relationship of these other nation's "laws" to Moses; eg: whether they are independent, or one must be a subset of the other. :dunno

 

[Eugene]

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

That's an interesting thought...

SoG - 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.)

SoG - 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.

SoG - 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.

Eugene - Confusion was not restricted to the one event because the former apostles were not given the fulfilled gospel (Colossians 1:26). E.g., again astonished the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit, Peter needing correction for withdrawing himself for eating with the Gentiles. When Peter said the following in 2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood. They had need of what God was saying through Paul just as we do.

SoG - 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".

SoG - 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.).

Eugene - Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. We are born with only an old Man or nature, but we are only responsible for our personal sin; some use the doctrine "Age of accountability" to address this. The child born to David went to the same place of rest David later went to. 2 Samuel 12:23 "But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."

 

[About the Son of God]

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

Eugene: Confusion was not restricted to the one event because the former apostles were not given the fulfilled gospel (Colossians 1:26). E.g., again astonished the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit, Peter needing correction for withdrawing himself for eating with the Gentiles.[/quote]

SOG:
So I misunderstood you; that's somewhat helpful -- but your example is troubling.
I don't see that Peter needed correction on account of any "mystery" or "fulfillment" -- for very clearly Paul called his act hypocritical, not unlearned.
Also, the "correction" of Paul happened after the Event of Acts 10:19-20, and especially note Acts 10:28 -- and its relation to eating in Acts 10:14. (you are what you eat?)
Jesus ate with sinners, and Gentiles; Hence, it's hardly a Gospel point specific to Paul that Peters "sin" of not eating with the Gentiles was mysteriously revealed to Paul.

Galatians 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

So, it's quite clear to me that Peter was trying to be everything to everyone -- the same as Paul did.

1Cori 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

Consider, if Peter is a hypocrite so is Paul -- for Paul says circumcision is nothing, and much ado about how he wished anyone doing circumcision would castrate themselves, etc; but then it is PAUL who, himself, circumcises a man directly against his own condemnation of it:

Acts 16:1 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:
Acts 16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

So, I'm simply going to say that fearing the Jews is not a doctrinal or Gospel point; it's *diplomacy*.

But I'd like to point something out -- Peter doesn't attack Paul in the same way (in Public); but Paul was clearly to be blamed as well.
for a man is to be judged AS HE JUDGES. Therefore, Peter had the right to blame Paul as well.

What I am trying to say is that Paul is "trigger" happy. Using the authority of the Church is not the first thing a person is to do when a brother sins, for Jesus outlines a principle.
Matthew 18:15 Moreover [a separate issue] if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

If Peter really did encroach on Paul's ministry to the Gentiles -- Paul ought to have spoken to him privately; which means not writing these things in an epistle unless Peter refused to listen in order to Gain Peter quietly. But even though there is no sign of Peter refusing to listen -- rather Peter championed the very defense of eating with Gentiles -- Paul still took him down publicly.

Eugene: When Peter said the following in 2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood. They had need of what God was saying through Paul just as we do.

SOG: Umm... I don't see that Peter was ignorant of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and it's ramifications -- he was simply being hypocritical by his own free will, and through his weakness in fear.

Eugene: Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. We are born with only an old Man or nature, but we are only responsible for our personal sin; some use the doctrine "Age of accountability" to address this. The child born to David went to the same place of rest David later went to. 2 Samuel 12:23 "But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."

SOG: Our personal transgressions would be more precise English rendering of "personal sin"; but I agree in a general sense.
The child died on account of what his Father did -- not on account of his own transgression ( eg: by sin of his own free will ).
David essentially killed his child by having sex with Bathsheba in adultery. She lusted, he lusted, the child died.
It has little or nothing to do with accountability in my eyes; for what could possibly be the sin that the child did in ignorance of what he was SUPPOSED to do ?

 

[Eugene]

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

what could possibly be the sin that the child did in ignorance of what he was SUPPOSED to do ?

Exactly. The child had nothing but an old nature, but it would only be responsible for any sin it committed. Would lying come into play at four years of age, anger at five? Is it fair for God to judge sin? David's child certainly wasn't judged. A brother in Christ once told me that at the age of five he heard a sermon that so convicted him of his sin he went to the altar after the meeting and received Christ. Was the Holy Spirit convicting him of sin, of righteous, and of judgment? Until that point in his life would he have been guilty of his spoiled actions?

 

[About the Son of God]

Re: Does man act freely and responsibly ?

Very interesting. You suggest that the passive voice relates to some human pers/on who led the nations to revolt. SavedbyGrace57 suggests that it was God.

If sbg57 were only "suggesting" a possibility among many, then I wouldn't have a problem -- but he has been writing in very absolute terms that it is the only way.

The grammar and syntax is not decisive. I say that for this reason... * There is no need for any discussion on first person in the text. If the text were in the active voice, then SavedbyGrace57 would need a first person singular to make his point. However, the text is 3ird person plural in the passive voice.

Correct, they were "brought" together -- but SBG indicated first person; which is flat wrong.

The nations were lead. SavedbyGrace57 speculates that it is God doing the leading, you speculate it is a human agent.

No, I'm avoiding just speculating -- it's in the Greek but not translated that the leading was "upon themselves" (epi to auto).
Acts 4:26 παρεστησαν οι βασιλεις της γης και οι αρχοντες συν-ηχ-θησαν επι το αυτο κατα του κυριου και κατα του χριστου αυτου

We can also go back to the psalm being quoted by acts 4:26 -- Psalm 2:1-2 -- even in the KJV the translation is very clear, they took it upon themselves:

Psalm 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
Psalm 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,

The kings, when it was fulfilled, included Herod.... right?
The high priests took counsel together to put him to death...

And we know of God's part in this, too -- for the psalm indicates that God is *displeased* with the action and yet still wishes these evil doers to convert.

Psalm 2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision.
Psalm 2:5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
...
Psalm 2:10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
Psalm 2:11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Psalm 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

If God only predestines according to his pleasure, then it makes little sense that the actualization of that predestination is God's displeasure.

Nor does it make sense that God instruct these people to do something they are predestined not ro do -- "kiss the son" (or his rod) lest he be angry.

Neither are directly in verse 26 or in verse 27 where the same verb occurs. The conclusion is that the grammar can be read either way.

Um, no. I'm sure the grammar is about taking it upon (epi) themselves. It is a conspiracy of their own spirit (eg: evil intent).

In the Greek, LXX, the quote of the NT is verbatim -- but if you prefer the original "Hebrew" we can look:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2602.htm
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+2&version=NIV

I'm not a Hebrew expert, but in reading many translations -- they all appear to agree that the psalm doesn't even slightly suggest that an external leading happened.
If you can read Hebrew, I'd be interested in how you translate it and why.

So, the N.T. in interpreting the O.T. prophecy is adding something regarding God -- which is itself interpretable in two (or more) ways.

To decide the issue one must look to the context.

Yes, the psalm is the immediate context; for it is the prophecy and the exact wording of that prophecy.

We do not have to look far into the context because verse 28 is decisive. Even if the nations in verse 26 and if Herod, Pilate, the nations and the people of Israel in verse 27 were lead by a human agent, it does not matter in the context. The ultimate reason for the gathering is found in verse 28.

You seem to be oversimplifying the ultimate reason to a single purpose and cause -- which the passage in Acts 4:28 does not specify explicitly. It is (at least partly) specified in the Psalm; God had determined that when the wicked gather, by the Christ they would be defeated (which is not a direct defeat -- either.).

This is not the first time God has determined the downfall of an evil party who took it upon themselves to sin against God.
It is very clearly spelled out HOW God's hand worked in another place -- God did cause the Gathering -- but not directly; he did it through asking many spirits for whomsoever *wanted* to be the agent of evil:
1Kings 22:20-23
It was God's council, and his hand (permission and power over the demons) which led to the Kings demise ; but it says nowhere that God caused the King to be a sinner in the first place.

The gathering was for the purpose of doing what the hand and will of God had predetermined or predestined it to be.

Yes, but not in a direct sense. God uses evil spirits to mislead evil men. By dividing the kingdom of Satan against itself, he destroys it.

God's greatness extends to controlling history, even when history has degrees (not total) of freedom.

So even if there were a human agent, he was gathering the nations because who then is behind the human agent that gathered them together.

I fail to see why there needs to be one.
If each man is evil -- and sees the other evil men -- then mutual attraction arises.
Their evil, itself, leads them on the path -- but if we are to give it a name because there is such a "who" then, I'll say, Satan or a lying spirit.

I suppose it might be argued that Satan no longer has a fully free will, though... I haven't probed that.

Verse 28 makes it clear that in the end, all human agents are determined by God will and predetermination or predestination.

OK -- so, now advance your argument ( I like what you're doing... there's a challenge coming. )

I hold that God can indeed harden people -- but that, in any case where he does so alone, (indirectly or directly is irrelevant) the fact that God is the sole cause means God will not judge them for what they did; eg: God hates nothing he has [solely] made.

However, in addition to God's action -- a man can freely harden their own heart beyond God's doing; at which point, God's wrath will pour out on them.

If you can find a counter example -- where a man is not ultimately claimed by scripture to have been punished for their own fault, and rather strictly because of God; that's going to be an example I simply am not aware of -- and would be open to examining.

 

[About the Son of God]

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

what could possibly be the sin that the child did in ignorance of what he was SUPPOSED to do ?

Exactly. The child had nothing but an old nature, but it would only be responsible for any sin it committed.

O.K. , yes...

But ... "old nature" in a newly conceived child... that's strange terminology.
When does the old man become old? Did Paul have an old man before he died in the Law?
Romans 7:8-9

It seems like a misnomer to say "old nature" rather than "inherited weakness" or "concupiscence".
The weakness is a sin in a restricted sense, eg: in the same general sense that Jesus emptied himself of what was supposed to be there as God, to become sin ; but this "concupiscence" or "inherited weakness" is not a transgression in that it deserves death by the law's judgment.

Would lying come into play at four years of age, anger at five? Is it fair for God to judge sin? David's child certainly wasn't judged.

hmmm... but more importantly, are these sins you speak of always worthy of death?
Surely, not all sins receive death even if a dove or pigeon is not offered, even by the strict law of Moses.
So, non-death causing sins can be merely prayed for ... and God can grant mercy.
1John 5:14-16

I will argue "yes" God can judge them -- but I expect that most children's younger year sins require little punishment even when judged.
In some denominations, I suppose, infant baptism is a prayer for the child.
In the Jewish religion, circumcision holds that honor.

A brother in Christ once told me that at the age of five he heard a sermon that so convicted him of his sin he went to the altar after the meeting and received Christ.

Do you mean, objectively?
I don't want to suggest the sermon was abusive, but I'd like to explore the psychology a bit.

A child abused by it's parent (severely) will often believe that they themselves were the cause of the problem. They will blame themselves for what their parents did to them. In some ways this is christ-like, wanting to take the sins of the world on their own shoulders -- and in some ways, it's a deception -- for they were not guilty in the first place.
If a child can be convinced that they are guilty, merely because they suffer and others are angry -- then some sermons may be directed toward a child already abused; some sermons may lead a child to over-estimate their responsibility, and so forth.

Now, a child can be guilty of sin at 5 -- but without knowing the sermon, or the child's explanation -- it's sort of an empty proposition to explore.

Was the Holy Spirit convicting him of sin, of righteous, and of judgment? Until that point in his life would he have been guilty of his spoiled actions?

I don't know ... ?

 

[savedbygrace57]

To do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined !


Acts 4:24-28

24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:

25 Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?

26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.

27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,

28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

Everything beginning with adam and eve and the serpent in the garden, up to this day, everything done by all human beings, good or evil, has only been that done which God's Hand and Counsel determined before to be done !

Thats why Jeremiah writes Jer 10:23

23 O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

O Lord, I know that the way humans act is not under their control.
Humans do not direct their steps as they walk.

And Solomon writes Prov 20:24

24 Man's[In General] goings are of the Lord; how can a man then understand his own way?

Man’s steps are ordered by the Lord. How then can a man understand his way?

Prov 16:9

9 A man’s heart deviseth his way, but the Lord directeth his steps.


We make our own plans,
but the Lord decides
where we will go.

Eph 1:11b

11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh or effects all things after the counsel of his own will:

Also in union with him we were given an inheritance, we who were picked in advance according to the purpose of the One who effects everything in keeping with the decision of his will,

This of course is a Truth that the natural mind of man is at enmity with and cannot accept !583

 

[ezra]

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

Originally Posted by savedbygrace57
Everything beginning with adam and eve and the serpent in the garden, up to this day, everything done by all human beings, good or evil, has only been that done which God's Hand and Counsel determined before to be done !

I DISAGREE with this... God does not create evil God is Love do i think God know when evil will be done? he is all knowing... Do you honestly think God says ok to abortion . he gave the holy spirit to guide. also a type restrainer but a force .he gave US FREE WILL freedom to chose let me give a sample a preacher i know is divorcing his wife to be with another woman who is divorcing her spouse .so as the 2of them can be happy and be married. the preacher tells his wife this is what God wants so i can be happy. you think this was done by which God's Hand and Counsel determined it?

 

[savedbygrace57]

Prov 16:4 Made for His Praise !


Prov 16:4

4 The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

Ps 145:10

10 All thy works shall praise thee, O Lord; and thy saints shall bless thee.

All things God made are His Works, yes even the wicked and their wickedness were made by Him for His Praise, that is to say everything God has made works to His Praise, to include the wicked, even the wicked one himself, the children of the wicked one Matt 13:38

The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; Which are also the wicked of Prov 16:4; Yes the wicked shall praise Him in His Divine Justice when He condemns them in the last day 1 Cor 11:32

32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

Of course how the wicked praise Him will be not be intelligently or out of Redemptive gratitude as so with the saved, but in that they are exactly what God purposed them to be and do, and since all men do and accomplish what He created them to do, they are to His Praise, and why it can be said assuredly, the works of His Hands shall Praise Him !584

 

[Sparkey]

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

MODERATOR NOTE: A personal comment about a family member was deleted for the sake of privacy. Members who have read it are to ask the Lord for his continued presence, comfort and wisdom in the lives and hearts of our loved ones.

Love covereth a thing.

 

[Eugene]

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

About the Son of God - But ... "old nature" in a newly conceived child... that's strange terminology.
When does the old man become old? Did Paul have an old man before he died in the Law?
Romans 7:8-9

Eugene - Maybe we can say that a child has red hair because its parents have red hair. Even if the child's parents are born again with the new nature of Christ, they retain the old man's nature to sin. Ephesians 4:22 That ye (Christians) put off concerning the former conversation (manner of life) the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts.

About the Son of God - It seems like a misnomer to say "old nature" rather than "inherited weakness" or "concupiscence".
The weakness is a sin in a restricted sense, eg: in the same general sense that Jesus emptied himself of what was supposed to be there as God, to become sin ; but this "concupiscence" or "inherited weakness" is not a transgression in that it deserves death by the law's judgment.

Eugene - Because Jesus took on Him the nature of man He died. Again, a child does not die because of its old man; they die because they don't receive Christ as their Savior, and Ephesians 4:24 talks of that New Man.

About the Son of God - Would lying come into play at four years of age, anger at five? Is it fair for God to judge sin? David's child certainly wasn't judged.
hmmm... but more importantly, are these sins you speak of always worthy of death?

Surely, not all sins receive death even if a dove or pigeon is not offered, even by the strict law of Moses.
So, non-death causing sins can be merely prayed for ... and God can grant mercy.
1John 5:14-16
I will argue "yes" God can judge them -- but I expect that most children's younger year sins require little punishment even when judged.

Eugene - The only thing on this I can think of is the fact that without Christ their works come into play in the day of judgment. We read in Matthew 11:24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. Genesis 18:25 Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? Ecclesiastes 12:14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. God know their hearts and will judge righteously.

Eugene - A brother in Christ once told me that at the age of five he heard a sermon that so convicted him of his sin he went to the altar after the meeting and received Christ.

About the Son of God - Do you mean, objectively?
I don't want to suggest the sermon was abusive, but I'd like to explore the psychology a bit.

A child abused by it's parent (severely) will often believe that they themselves were the cause of the problem. They will blame themselves for what their parents did to them. In some ways this is christ-like, wanting to take the sins of the world on their own shoulders -- and in some ways, it's a deception -- for they were not guilty in the first place.

If a child can be convinced that they are guilty, merely because they suffer and others are angry -- then some sermons may be directed toward a child already abused; some sermons may lead a child to over-estimate their responsibility, and so forth.

Now, a child can be guilty of sin at 5 -- but without knowing the sermon, or the child's explanation -- it's sort of an empty proposition to explore.
Was the Holy Spirit convicting him of sin, of righteous, and of judgment? Until that point in his life would he have been guilty of his spoiled actions?
I don't know ... ?

Eugene - Our pastor, the five year old's father didn't condemn as a grace preacher, but the Holy Spirit made the sermon alive to him that day. I believe he would have been accountable for his actions after that.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will !

Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

The all things here are not restricted to the things of the context, but does embrace the universality of all things, even of natural providence, and forms the foundation for Paul to also declare another familiar context Rom 8:28

28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

This knowledge comes from Knowing and Believing, Trusting that all things [no exceptions] worketh [to be operative] after the Counsel of God's Own Will. Also note, that God is not working according to another's will, but of His Own Will, others will are controlled by His Own Will and not the other way around This should silence the ultra blasphemy or concept of man's freewill, for its not ever not under the control of God's Own Will, working according to His Counsel !585

 

[Messenger]

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

Rom 8:28 28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. This knowledge comes from Knowing and Believing, Trusting that all things [no exceptions] worketh [to be operative] after the Counsel of God's Own Will. Also note, that God is not working according to another's will, but of His Own Will, others will are controlled by His Own Will and not the other way around This should silence the ultra blasphemy or concept of man's freewill, for its not ever not under the control of God's Own Will, working according to His Counsel !

Amen!

Jehovah God is Sovereign over all the earth and all its goings on: All creation and events, on a personal level as well as corporate; whether judged by mankind to be significant or insignificant; of the manner in which He deals with the Righteous and the wicked. But the counsel of Jehovah shall stand; it's all His Business, as He works according to His Perfect Will and Good Pleasure.

Proverbs 19:21
Many purposes are in a man's heart, but the counsel of Jehovah shall stand.

Proverbs 16:33
The lot is cast into the lap, but the decision is wholly of the Lord [even the events that seem accidental are really ordered by Him]. (AMP)

This is to be ascribed, not to blind chance and fortune, to the influence of the stars, or to any invisible created being, angel or devil, but to the Lord only; there is no such thing as chance, or events by chance; those events which seem most fortuitous or contingent are all disposed, ordered, and governed, by the sovereign will of God. -John Gill

TGBTGFEAE!

 

[savedbygrace57]

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

Rom 8:28 28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. This knowledge comes from Knowing and Believing, Trusting that all things [no exceptions] worketh [to be operative] after the Counsel of God's Own Will. Also note, that God is not working according to another's will, but of His Own Will, others will are controlled by His Own Will and not the other way around This should silence the ultra blasphemy or concept of man's freewill, for its not ever not under the control of God's Own Will, working according to His Counsel !

Amen!

Jehovah God is Sovereign over all the earth and all its goings on: All creation and events, on a personal level as well as corporate; whether judged by mankind to be significant or insignificant; of the manner in which He deals with the Righteous and the wicked. But the counsel of Jehovah shall stand; it's all His Business, as He works according to His Perfect Will and Good Pleasure.

Proverbs 19:21
Many purposes are in a man's heart, but the counsel of Jehovah shall stand.

Proverbs 16:33
The lot is cast into the lap, but the decision is wholly of the Lord [even the events that seem accidental are really ordered by Him]. (AMP)

This is to be ascribed, not to blind chance and fortune, to the influence of the stars, or to any invisible created being, angel or devil, but to the Lord only; there is no such thing as chance, or events by chance; those events which seem most fortuitous or contingent are all disposed, ordered, and governed, by the sovereign will of God. -John Gill

TGBTGFEAE!

I concur, great post !

 

[About the Son of God]

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

About the Son of God But ... "old nature" in a newly conceived child... that's strange terminology.
When does the old man become old? Did Paul have an old man before he died in the Law?
Romans 7:8-9

Eugene - Maybe we can say that a child has red hair because its parents have red hair. Even if the child's parents are born again with the new nature of Christ, they retain the old man's nature to sin. ...

About the Son of God - Hmmm .... True: The believing parents do not (intrinsically) sanctify the child; although a believing spouse does sanctify the other spouse: 1Corinthians 7:14.

By the inferences present, the marriage bond exceeds even the parenting bond in power; for the spouses sanctify each other, but even so they only allow a child to potentially be holy. ( Hence, Psalm 51 suggests both parents were in the sin during adultery. )

Yet -- I still have trouble seeing that there is an old "nature" in a holy child -- for Paul said "I was alive" outside the law. (Paul's parents, presumably were not adulterers) Hence, it's not like red hair which manifests from the moment of conception -- but something which arises later in life and eventually kills. Romans 7:9

The child does not become fully diseased with the "old man" until the old man is "made" (wrought) through the actions of evil (active sin) which *used* the law to deceive. ( Romans 7:11 )

: Paul elsewhere says "Adam was not deceived" -- but here in Romans he admits that he himself *was* deceived. Hence, Paul also shows that even the path to destruction is different for different men.

Eugene - Because Jesus took on Him the nature of man He died.

About the Son of God - Wow. You're really making me think!

But: I don't think Jesus died merely on account of taking on the nature of man; for the same reason that Paul was alive outside the law before sin "sprouted" (revived) in him. True; Jesus was able to die (physically) because he took on the nature of man -- but that's not solely on account of being human; for even as a human he said "I am the life."

Jesus took on "sin" in the sense of emptying himself of certain prerogatives of God - Hence Jesus could "increase in wisdom" rather than just "being" wisdom; He could be "tempted", he could also (and most importantly) "serve" as a slave, etc.

Compare that to the other claims being made:

Proverbs 16:33
The lot is cast into the lap, but the decision is wholly of the Lord [even the events that seem accidental are really ordered by Him]. (AMP)

This is to be ascribed, not to blind chance...

And yet, free will is certainly not "chance!!!!" -- but it can be quite blind.

What I'm trying to say is that for us to have free will, God had to choose to not control certain events absolutely; For one example, Jesus chose to lay his life down and be subject to "us" and our "will": John 18:18-21 ;
and as an example par-excellence, see his mother and father having authority over him: Luke 2:51. For the parents are the law of the child until age 13 (Modern bar-mitzvah) Roman 1:30 "disobedient to parents"

Therefore "Free will" implies that God can empty himself to some degree so that we can choose "some things" ourselves. (limited). Just so, the Father has given Judgment over to the son -- which means that the Father defers to the Son's judgment in some way (otherwise, he really hasn't given it over to him) .

Eugene: Again, a child does not die because of its old man; they die because they don't receive Christ as their Savior, and Ephesians 4:24 talks of that New Man.

About the Son of God -
I want to agree with you -- and at the same time, there is something wrong with what you've said, and I'm having a dreadful time putting my finger on exactly what.

There are multiple reasons a child will die. The old man, being sin, is death.
The universe will end; so Even if one does not sin, so long as they are in this universe -- they will die. ( Without Christ as their savior, they will still die, therefore. )
But: Death of the body isn't death of the soul; and vice versa.

What exactly does it mean, then, that Paul was "alive once outside the law" but then died?
For he was not bodily dead as an infant.... nor did he die bodily as a young child, and was "resurrected"....

About the Son of God - (old quote)
Surely, not all sins receive death even if a dove or pigeon is not offered, even by the strict law of Moses. ... I will argue "yes" God can judge them -- but I expect that most children's younger year sins require little punishment even when judged.

Eugene - The only thing on this I can think of is the fact that without Christ their works come into play in the day of judgment. We read in Matthew 11:24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. Genesis 18:25 Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? Ecclesiastes 12:14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. God know their hearts and will judge righteously.

About the Son of God -
So, when I say most require little punishment -- I have only statistical examples of children so young they couldn't walk to Jesus on their own. eg: Infants or at most barely toddling. But still:

Matthew 19:13-15 "forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."

Yet, they can't possibly go to Jesus unless their parents brought them.

What then of Paul? : Paul couldn't have been alive as a child, unless someone had brought him to God through circumcision, or prayer, or an angel had watched over him, or something ???

Eugene - Our pastor, the five year old's father didn't condemn as a grace preacher, but the Holy Spirit made the sermon alive to him that day. I believe he would have been accountable for his actions after that.

About the Son of God -
As I said before, I don't wish to suggest abuse; but I did want to talk about psychology.
Abuse is the extreme that most people can identify when looking for psychological reasons that a person might believe that which isn't objectively true.
But it does go beyond that; for feelings are not accurate indicators for everything.
I recall some Mormon ministers who came over for a talk and had asked me to pray; and the next time they visited they wanted to know if I had gotten a "burning feeling" in my heart; so recognizing the temptation to public applause -- I answered them, "When I pray, I do so in private in my room -- and I will not tell you, for I don't always let my right hand know what my left is doing."
(Matthew 6:5-6).

In order to accurately determine the heart of a child who is in a psychologically pressured situation, certain things need to be done to eliminate the effect of social pressure on them. A child's own parent giving the sermon is an entanglement which goes beyond my skills in psychology.... I expect that the child has since grown into an understanding of sin that went beyond age 5's ability to understand.


Under the law, and I suppose this is something that @jasoncran might know something about; The parents are the law of the child up and until they become subject to the law themselves. In Jesus day, that was age 13 -- with partial permission given at age 12. (The age he was found in the temple.)

We no longer have a temple to examine the practice with, but it was eventually replaced in part with the modern bar-mizvah party; Jesus was at the temple taking an examination much like like a modern secular child might try to take a drivers *PERMIT* test.... allowed to drive, but only with supervision.

But the parent's truly were the law and the child's protection from the law before then:

When Paul speaks of "disobedient to parents" ( Romans 1:30 ) we're not talking simple selfishness; for I have seen Jewish commentaries on the formal legal procedure necessary for a parent to acquit themselves of such a child (who would practically have had to have been a hellion for them to even be allowed to attempt to enter the legal proceedings.)
Simple selfishness over ice-cream and such of a typical 5 year old isn't what Paul is speaking of there.

Ishmael, under Abrham, was not cast out as a child under 13. In fact, when Sarah tried to rid herself of them early on -- God refused to let him go, but sent Hagar back. It isn't until Ishmael is over age 13 (legally a son of the law, in later legal code) that his act of mocking Sarah becomes punishable in God's estimation.)

Please Note, Ishmael likely did something quite serious -- fo "mocking" is understood of violent acts, such as poking Judge Sampson's eyes out, or fornicating via *rape* in front of the golden calf in the desert; Hence, understand that the name "Isaac" (sport or mock) rarely means light - hearted play and God sanctioned the punishment in this case.

Or again, when a father (a true israelite) is found guilty of having an Idol; not only the father, but his wife and his very children burned for it; For the parents protect the child from the law, but if the father is condemned .... the child has no protection.

Joshua 7:19-25. ( Possibly (slim chance) seen as a cleansing by fire after death or on the day of judgment, vis. 1Corinthians 3:13-15, but which was truly a death sentence, none the less. )

 

[Eugene]

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

About the Son of God - Wow. You're really making me think!

But: I don't think Jesus died merely on account of taking on the nature of man; for the same reason that Paul was alive outside the law before sin "sprouted" (revived) in him. True; Jesus was able to die (physically) because he took on the nature of man -- but that's not solely on account of being human; for even as a human he said "I am the life."

Jesus took on "sin" in the sense of emptying himself of certain prerogatives of God - Hence Jesus could "increase in wisdom" rather than just "being" wisdom; He could be "tempted", he could also (and most importantly) "serve" as a slave, etc.

Hi brother, sorry I’ve been slow on replies as my computer was in the shop getting updates to Windows 7-64 bit professional, and I already want my old HP Pro back; I’ll probably never learn this.

I think I may saying things wrong, but if there was any other way for man to become born of God without Jesus dying we would have been told. Whether we call our self of the first Adam or of the second Adam (Christ), the natural man or the spiritual, or the old or new man, the dead or them alive in Christ; it is the same. Once we were dead (Matthew 8:22 - let the dead bury their dead.) We too were dead in sin, but as Romans 6:11 tells us: “Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.â€

John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." You mentioned the fact “When does the old man become old? Did Paul have an old man before he died in the Law? Romans 7:8-9†I believe what Paul was saying is that before he knew what the law actually said he thought he was doing it right; thus the law is called “The ministration of death.†2 Corinthians 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones . .

I just posted a new thread; “The Two Adams†that might shed some light on it at the following link. http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=53229&p=829094&viewfull=1#post829094

Blessings in Christ Jesus.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Boasters !

2 Tim 3:2

For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

Boaster here means a empty pretender Rom 1:30

Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

Those of us who testify that one is saved from their sins because of their freewill is a boaster who glories in themselves, they pretend to glory in God, but they are pretenders and glory in themselves. They deny the Sovereignty of God in Salvation by His Electing Grace, and the Sovereign working of the Spirit in a person which is what causes one to differ. There is no middle ground here, for either the Sovereign Grace of the Spirit causes one to differ or man's freewill; Those of us who say freewill of man, then we are proud boasters, look what I have done !586

 

[Eugene]

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

Those of us who say freewill of man, then we are proud boasters, look what I have done !586

Therein lays your misconception. It is not I, but He whose promise is not slack. I have yet to see one under the thought of self that occupied that place of righteousness in actuality by their works, and that is not to be taken as condemnation or judgment; it’s just a fact. Are you saying a Christian cannot know they are saved by having believed on the Lord Jesus Christ? Paul said it this way in 1 Corinthians 2:2 | For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. Blessings in Christ Jesus.