I need help with a question

[OzSpen]

Oz. No one is saying it is impossible to choose for or against the Lord. As a matter of circumstance it is impossible to not choose for or against the Lord. Therefore what we are discussing is how the term freewill is an equivocation. To elaborate, freewill to you means the ability to choose one way or the other. But in all dictionaries it means the ability to choose apart from any restraining powers such as Coercion, Fate, or God.

childeye,

Not so! Your language, 'in all dictionaries', provides too comprehensive a requirement for you and me to pursue. Do you know all the translated languages of the world that have dictionaries? I think you are engaging in hyperbole.

Australia's national dictionary, The Macquarie Dictionary, 3rd ed 1997 gives the meaning of the noun 'free will' as:

'1. free choice; voluntary decision. 2. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine force' (S v free will, p. 846)​

The adjective, 'free-will' has the meaning:

'1. made or done freely or of one's own accord; voluntary: a free-will offering. 2. of or relating to the metaphysical doctrine of the freedom of the will: the free-will controversy' (S v free-will, p. 846).​

Therefore, my statement at #78 stands and is confirmed by The Macquarie Dictionary, 'I don't find free will difficult to understand. It is the ability of contrary choice'.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I identified two free wills, one ruled by Truth and one by lies which usurp from theTruth. I cannot be certain which will you are talking about when you say free will would establish which yoke to take. Free from what? The term is ambiguous when predicated on there being an option. Therefore I surmise we are either ruled by Truth or lies to begin with so as to draw a distinction. At any rate no sane person could call a person ruled by lies free in their will.

I don't think you are talking about 'two free wills' but two worldviews. However, even when you talk about 'one ruled by the Truth', I ask: Which Truth? The Buddhist Truth, Islamic Truth, Christian Truth, Judaistic Truth or the Truth of postmodernism, paganism, humanism, pluralism, etc???

 

[Stan1953]

It appears the OP has not posted since Sept 2014 so no use addressing him, but as to the present, there seems to be two issues now.

1. What is free will?
2. What is truth?

As childeye seems to be the one arguing against both, maybe he can answer these two questions for me before I engage?

 

[childeye]

childeye,

Not so! Your language, 'in all dictionaries', provides too comprehensive a requirement for you and me to pursue. Do you know all the translated languages of the world that have dictionaries? I think you are engaging in hyperbole.

Australia's national dictionary, The Macquarie Dictionary, 3rd ed 1997 gives the meaning of the noun 'free will' as:

'1. free choice; voluntary decision. 2. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine force' (S v free will, p. 846)​

The adjective, 'free-will' has the meaning:

'1. made or done freely or of one's own accord; voluntary: a free-will offering. 2. of or relating to the metaphysical doctrine of the freedom of the will: the free-will controversy' (S v free-will, p. 846).​

Therefore, my statement at #78 stands and is confirmed by The Macquarie Dictionary, 'I don't find free will difficult to understand. It is the ability of contrary choice'.

Oz

With respect to you Oz, I feel the Macquarie Dictionary validates what I am saying about freewill in all dictionaries, or rather I should say all dictionaries I have ever searched. I see nowhere in these definitions that say the ability of contrary choice is what freewill is anymore than it's going to say the availability of contrary options. Note: free choice, voluntary decision; implies the will is not restrained by any higher powers.

Moreover we are talking specifically about the moral imperative of Godliness and ungodliness, obedience to God and sin, unrighteousness and righteousness. We share the planet with other people, we are going to deal with how we treat our fellow man out of necessity, not out of any voluntary means. I believe Love is the highest power and God is Love. You might say we have a contrary choice to God. That doesn't make God not the highest power. That doesn't make sin freewill. I am saying the term freewill is ambiguous not comprehensive.

 

[OzSpen]

With respect to you Oz, I feel the Macquarie Dictionary validates what I am saying about freewill in all dictionaries, or rather I should say all dictionaries I have ever searched. I see nowhere in these definitions that say the ability of contrary choice is what freewill is anymore than it's going to say the availability of contrary options. Note: free choice, voluntary decision; implies the will is not restrained by any higher powers.

Moreover we are talking specifically about the moral imperative of Godliness and ungodliness, obedience to God and sin, unrighteousness and righteousness. We share the planet with other people, we are going to deal with how we treat our fellow man out of necessity, not out of any voluntary means. I believe Love is the highest power and God is Love. You might say we have a contrary choice to God. That doesn't make God not the highest power. That doesn't make sin freewill. I am saying the term freewill is ambiguous not comprehensive.

The Macquarie Dictionary gave the definition of the noun, free will, as 'free choice; voluntary decision'. The adjective, 'free-will', means: 'made or done freely or of one's own accord; voluntary'.

So to make a free-will decision is to make a voluntary choice according to my own accord. I have the choice, voluntarily, to choose not to eat avocado (which I dislike) or grapes (which I like). I have the voluntary choice to worship Buddha or Jesus. I choose Jesus when the Gospel was preached to me.

This is not to deny the critical importance of the Holy Spirit drawing me to salvation and God being the author of salvation, but I can choose to reject that offer. How do I know? Judas was chosen with the 12 but rejected Jesus, under the influence of Satan. Hebrews 6:4-6 (ESV) tells how it happens for some:

'For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt'.
​

You state:

'We share the planet with other people, we are going to deal with how we treat our fellow man out of necessity, not out of any voluntary means'.
​

Try telling that to the Australian, Indonesian and Malaysian authorities right now, who are turning back the boats of asylum seekers who have some Christians on them and they are being sent back to the very people who persecuted them. The Australian government is turning back the boats out of a voluntary choice by the government and not out of necessity. We have loads of room in our country to accommodate deserving asylum seekers.

Oz

 

[childeye]

It appears the OP has not posted since Sept 2014 so no use addressing him, but as to the present, there seems to be two issues now.

1. What is free will?
2. What is truth?

As childeye seems to be the one arguing against both, maybe he can answer these two questions for me before I engage?

These are fair questions. I would start out by saying that I find freewill to be an equivocation, when based upon the necessity of options.

This discussion is specifically pertaining to the moral choice between God and sin, or God and false god as regarding non-Christians. I'm not arguing that we cannot freely choose between apples and oranges. Therefore when I speak of Truth, I am speaking about the Truth established upon God's True Character, the Christ. A Truth that when served, serves all men.

What is free will? That depends on who you ask. A free will to me is one that is subject to the Truth, which I afore described. John 8:32. However the freewill in dictionaries is predicated upon having the prerogative to choose to reject God which I find troublesome since by default that makes the will a servant of sin. Romans 6:16-17. The dictionary describes a place where the will is free only as long as there is an option. It gets even more complicated when choosing between God and false gods.

 

[childeye]

The Macquarie Dictionary gave the definition of the noun, free will, as 'free choice; voluntary decision'. The adjective, 'free-will', means: 'made or done freely or of one's own accord; voluntary'.

So to make a free-will decision is to make a voluntary choice according to my own accord. I have the choice, voluntarily, to choose not to eat avocado (which I dislike) or grapes (which I like). I have the voluntary choice to worship Buddha or Jesus.

Thanks Oz. We are in agreement as to what the Macquarie dictionary defines freewill as. Now we can proceed with discussing whether this free will actually exists as pertains to the relationship between man and God or whether it is an equivocation. I hope I will not come across as a demanding person if I say that I do not feel it will be productive to talk about choosing between avocados and grapes.

Above you say, you have the voluntary choice to worship Buddha or Jesus. I would definitely say that I do not. Why? Because I find that True worship is drawn out by the Object of worship and is therefore not voluntary. Matthew 21:16. I say this with all forthrightness and sincerity, but I am concerned that you might be offended as if I am saying your worship is not sincere. I am just seeking to glorify God by saying it like it is.

I choose Jesus when the Gospel was preached to me.

This is not to deny the critical importance of the Holy Spirit drawing me to salvation and God being the author of salvation, but I can choose to reject that offer. How do I know? Judas was chosen with the 12 but rejected Jesus, under the influence of Satan.

With all due respect Oz, you first clearly testify that the Holy Spirit was critical in your choosing Christ, then you switch to Judas whom Satan possessed to prove you could have rejected the offer. That is an assertion that doesn't hold water. That's how you prove to yourself you will is free, through Judas's betrayal? Come on, get serious. There's nothing wrong with saying that the cross is a power that persuades through the Gospel. 1 Corinthians 1:17-18.
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Hebrews 6:4-6 (ESV) tells how it happens for some:

'For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt'.​

This scripture is not saying how it happens for some. This scripture is saying God would not permit a person to move on beyond the stage of repentance, dead works, etc... until He was sure that person was ready to move on, since Hebrews 6:4-6 would be the consequence. See here in Hebrews 6:1-3.
6 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
3 And this will we do, if God permit.

​

You state:

'We share the planet with other people, we are going to deal with how we treat our fellow man out of necessity, not out of any voluntary means'.
​

Try telling that to the Australian, Indonesian and Malaysian authorities right now, who are turning back the boats of asylum seekers who have some Christians on them and they are being sent back to the very people who persecuted them. The Australian government is turning back the boats out of a voluntary choice by the government and not out of necessity. We have loads of room in our country to accommodate deserving asylum seekers.

Oz

You are calling the turning away of these people voluntary, by what proof? That is an assertion. It is predictable that had they not turned them away you would also call that voluntary. How do you know that it isn't darkness ruling in their hearts and mind that turns them away? How do you know it's not lack of Love, fear of financial burden? Did they volunteer for that too?

 

[childeye]

I don't think you are talking about 'two free wills' but two worldviews. However, even when you talk about 'one ruled by the Truth', I ask: Which Truth? The Buddhist Truth, Islamic Truth, Christian Truth, Judaistic Truth or the Truth of postmodernism, paganism, humanism, pluralism, etc???

The same Truth that Jesus said would set you free. John 8:32. John 14:6.

 

[OzSpen]

The same Truth that Jesus said would set you free. John 8:32. John 14:6.

How would you dialogue about that 'Truth' with an Aussie secularist in one of the parks in downtown Brisbane? Please explain how you would demonstrate it is THE Truth to such a non-Christian.

 

[childeye]

How would you dialogue about that 'Truth' with an Aussie secularist in one of the parks in downtown Brisbane? Please explain how you would demonstrate it is THE Truth to such a non-Christian.

LOL. I would probably start by saying that everyone reasons according to what they believe to be true. I would then speak about knowledge being defined as the acquiring of the Truth, thereby establishing there is a Truth from which we obtain knowledge about and have ignorance of. Then I would suggest there is a moral Truth that when served would serve all men. I would then equate that Truth with Spirit such as Love/empathy, establishing that empathy exists. I would then equate that term as God the moral power of goodness in mankind. I would then say there are many images of God but only one True Image. I would then say that the word Christ means the True Image of God sent by God. Then speak of the cross as the means of showing the Divine Love. Then say that since we reason according to what we believe to be true, this image of God when believed upon changes a man on the inside.

 

[TimothyW]

Tim,

I don't find free will difficult to understand. It is the ability of contrary choice. We see an example of this is Joshua 24:14-15 (ESV) and Joshua 24:21-24 (ESV):

14 “Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. 15 And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

21 And the people said to Joshua, “No, but we will serve the Lord.” 22 Then Joshua said to the people, “You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen the Lord, to serve him.” And they said, “We are witnesses.” 23 He said, “Then put away the foreign gods that are among you, and incline your heart to the Lord, the God of Israel.” 24 And the people said to Joshua, “The Lord our God we will serve, and his voice we will obey.”​

Here we have ample example that it is possible to choose for or against the Lord.

Oz

​

I agree, Ozzie

 

[Malachi]

But he also said the flesh profits nothing, which means to me that if there is nothing redeemable in the vessel of flesh, then there is nothing there to save. It may sound cold and heartless, but in reality, what is untrue about it?

When Christ said that "the flesh profits nothing" He also went on to say that "it is the Spirit that quickeneth" (Jn 6:63 where "spirit" should have been capitalized in the KJV to indicate the Holy Spirit). Therefore we need to be crystal clear as to what is redeemable and what is not, what is the flesh and what is the spirit, what is to be saved and what is not to be saved. So once we understand that, there is nothing cold or heartless about what Christ said.

The word "flesh" can be applied to either the physical body or to the corrupt human nature which resides within that body, and is indeed the soul of the unregenerate man. But within that soul is a dead component -- the spirit -- which needs to be "quickened" or made alive or brought to life by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is when a sinner becomes a "new creature" in Christ.

In God's eyes the "flesh" is of no spiritual profit (the flesh cannot truly be reformed since it is corrupted). That is why a sinner must be born again, and in that New Birth, the spirit is made alive. This is the component that understands spiritual things and communicates with God. It is the soul and the spirit which are redeemable, but God does not let it rest there. He will also redeem our mortal bodies so that they become immortal "spiritual bodies" (1 Cor 15). Which means that the whole man is redeemable. That is why people were made in "the image and likeness of God".

So to sum up, you have arrived at the wrong conclusions about what Christ really meant. Also, no one is predestined for either Heaven or Hell. The offer of salvation is to all humanity, and may be freely accepted or rejected. There are no "vessels" predetermined for destruction. It only appears that way because God already knows who will believe and who will not.

 

[Malachi]

How would you dialogue about that 'Truth' with an Aussie secularist in one of the parks in downtown Brisbane? Please explain how you would demonstrate it is THE Truth to such a non-Christian.

Here's one scenario:
1. Do you believe that there is such a concept as "reality"?
2. Is the world around you reality or an illusion?
3. Is your conscience and the conscience of others part of that reality?
4. Do people frequently act in response to their consciences?
5. What exactly does your conscience tell you?
6. If it tells you to do right, would you call that a moral decision?
7. Then there is such a thing as "morality" is there not?
8. Where does morality come from? Who puts morality into humans?
That should logically lead a secularist to understand that there is "spiritual reality" and ultimately spiritual reality is truth. That should also lead to Jesus who is the TRUTH and the Ultimate Reality.

 

[childeye]

When Christ said that "the flesh profits nothing" He also went on to say that "it is the Spirit that quickeneth" (Jn 6:63 where "spirit" should have been capitalized in the KJV to indicate the Holy Spirit). Therefore we need to be crystal clear as to what is redeemable and what is not, what is the flesh and what is the spirit, what is to be saved and what is not to be saved. So once we understand that, there is nothing cold or heartless about what Christ said.

The word "flesh" can be applied to either the physical body or to the corrupt human nature which resides within that body, and is indeed the soul of the unregenerate man. But within that soul is a dead component -- the spirit -- which needs to be "quickened" or made alive or brought to life by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is when a sinner becomes a "new creature" in Christ.

In God's eyes the "flesh" is of no spiritual profit (the flesh cannot truly be reformed since it is corrupted). That is why a sinner must be born again, and in that New Birth, the spirit is made alive. This is the component that understands spiritual things and communicates with God. It is the soul and the spirit which are redeemable, but God does not let it rest there. He will also redeem our mortal bodies so that they become immortal "spiritual bodies" (1 Cor 15). Which means that the whole man is redeemable. That is why people were made in "the image and likeness of God".

So to sum up, you have arrived at the wrong conclusions about what Christ really meant. Also, no one is predestined for either Heaven or Hell. The offer of salvation is to all humanity, and may be freely accepted or rejected. There are no "vessels" predetermined for destruction. It only appears that way because God already knows who will believe and who will not.

Respectfully Malachi, you have put me in a position of arguing semantics. Your commentary on your paraphrasing is well done but your paraphrasing of what I said is inaccurate.

The flesh has no good thing in it because the only good thing in mankind is the Spirit of God, which is His Word, the Light and life of man. John 1:3-4. That is why we are in His Image and likeness.The flesh is a vessel. 2 Corinthians 4:7. The flesh is made from the dust of the ground. There is nothing animate in the dust, hence the flesh profits nothing.

The semantic confusion is unavoidable in your statement that there are no vessels predetermined for destruction because God already knows who will believe and who will not. The fact that God knows from before time began that some won't believe means they are predetermined for destruction. Now I'm not going to say that God can't change what was pre-determined since all men were pre-determined to die apart from His saving grace. Hence this is a futile exercise in semantics due to the feebleness of our language.

That is why the issue is framed as do men believe of their own freewill or does the Holy Spirit move a man unto belief through revelation of the Truth? Your words saying that the Holy Spirit quickens something inside of us is along those lines and I agree with that.

 

[childeye]

I agree, Ozzie

Respectfully TimothyW. You should read post # 80 where I said this,"Oz. No one is saying it is impossible to choose for or against the Lord. As a matter of circumstance it is impossible to not choose for or against the Lord."

 

[childeye]

They do have a free choice. They have heard the witness of Jesus Christ but have chosen to reject it. They are blind to there own sin and do not want to accept the free grace and peace offered from God through Jesus Christ.
.

Who can freely accept and believe in what they are blind to? What the Koran says about Jesus shows they don't understand the Gospel.

 

[OzSpen]

Here's one scenario:
1. Do you believe that there is such a concept as "reality"?
2. Is the world around you reality or an illusion?
3. Is your conscience and the conscience of others part of that reality?
4. Do people frequently act in response to their consciences?
5. What exactly does your conscience tell you?
6. If it tells you to do right, would you call that a moral decision?
7. Then there is such a thing as "morality" is there not?
8. Where does morality come from? Who puts morality into humans?
That should logically lead a secularist to understand that there is "spiritual reality" and ultimately spiritual reality is truth. That should also lead to Jesus who is the TRUTH and the Ultimate Reality.

Malachi,

1. Of course there is reality. I'm living in it right now, typing at the keyboard of my PC and looking at the monitor.
2. My world is reality and not an illusion.
3. On the basis of Romans 2:15 (ESV) and other Scriptures, conscience is part of reality. This verse states: 'They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them'. I trust the Scripture to give me the truth about conscience. It 'bears witness'.
4. I cannot speak for the consciences of others, but many people I know do act in response to their consciences. An elderly man at church has been prompted to come to my place and help me diagnose the problem I have with accumulation of water in my back yard when heavy rain falls. We've had 2 deluges of rain so far this year and my back yard was so full of water that it was on the verge of entering my house. That man and his wife responded to their consciences and visited my house today to help with a diagnosis of the problem.
5. My conscience prompts me with right and wrong decisions. Read Romans 1:16-32 (ESV) to see what happens when ungodly people do not pursue their consciences. They will stand before God 'without excuse' (v 20).
6. Yes. Morality relates to doing right or wrong.
7. Of course there is morality and immorality. What's the point you are driving at?
8. Morality relates to responding to what God has made plain to people (Rom 1:19 ESV). Morality is related to keeping or breaking God's law. However, people suppress the truth of this knowledge because of their unrighteousness (immorality) according to Rom 1:18 (ESV).

You are making a leap of logic. There is no guarantee that a secularist will understand morality and an association with 'spiritual reality'. Sounds like you think it should, but my 54 years of Christian experience and working with lots of secular people tells me that that is not the case.

People won't understand spiritual reality and the truth of Jesus until their hearts have been changed by the living God.

Oz

 

[Obadiah]

Not necessarily directed at any one member or any one post, but lets remember to follow the A&T Guidelines (posted at this hyperlink) when posting in this forum from here on out.

 

[TheBarrd]

I'm finding it interesting here that my views seem to be in the minority. I didn't know that before. It always seemed to me that God had foreknowledge of what was going to happen and the prophecy in scripture was His sharing of some of that foreknowledge with us. I never before thought of it as God telling us something will happen, and then when it's time for it to happen, He has to create condemned people specifically to carry out what he said would happen. I just can't seem to see it that way.

I see it more like, in human terms, if I'm going to drive out onto the freeway of a major city at 5pm, I can predict (prophesy?) that the traffic will be heavy and slow to stopped. But I didn't create the slow traffic to make my prediction come true. I simply knew ahead of time this was going to happen. Even if I built the road and built all the cars, and even gave birth to all the drivers and gave them free will to drive as they please, I can still predict the heavy traffic and it will happen without me intervening to cause it to happen. So if I, as a mere human with only average intelligence can predict this, why couldn't God with his omniscience predict what will happen in the future without having to then specifically create condemned people to carry out what he predicted?

Make that a minority of two...

 

[childeye]

Make that a minority of two...

The way I see it is time is already finished to God. Notice when Jesus says to Peter that he will deny him 3 times. Each incident of denial involves others saying things to Peter so that he would deny Jesus each time. They had to be in an exact right place at the exact right time. So what foreknowledge must mean is that God knows everything that will happen in time before it ever happens.