Questions Regarding Free WIll

[th1b.taylor]

Which logical fallacy? Please name it. Who was committing it?

I was commenting on a point you and Smaller were discussing and my remark did not call out either of you on any point. You are loosing your objectivity, please, don't do that to yourself.

 

[th1b.taylor]

When did God give Adam the power to disobey him? A straight forward reading of Genesis 2 & 3 (which I have already covered) tells us that they were told not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. What did they do? They ate.

Illustrating the absence of robots and proving humans with a free will, the image of God.

 

[Hospes]

No. A born again believer is called, he does not join. A born again believer's faith is a gift from God. Man's will in this is to repent after being enlightened by the word of God and washed with the word of Truth and CONVERT. Convert is not salvation. Convert is a human act meaning (a change in mind about God and man to seek God). God does the rest. He regenerates. Regeneration is the act of God. Regeneration is a creation...not an emanation. A creation by God. You see, free will in the Adamic nature can be a curse or a blessing. It is up to you, your choice. God did not make us robots. Maturity, grace, learning, evil, greed, charity, selfishness and all other human traits come from choice and experience of life, but those who learn from life that they need God in their life by His word (or calling) and converts, God regenerates (gives us a new man) rebirth, in the image of His Son. We are now in the hands of God. It is irreversible. It is now in the hands of God and the new man. While He gave us a new man, He never changed the old. And the old man is constantly at odds with the new man. The born again man's flesh is out of the fight, it is now the battle of the Spirit against the old nature. by free will, you have already made the choice.
God is your keeper.

In short, you lose your free-will upon regeneration?

 

[childeye]

When did God give Adam the power to disobey him? A straight forward reading of Genesis 2 & 3 (which I have already covered) tells us that they were told not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. What did they do? They ate.

By the evidence in the biblical text, it tells us that Adam and Eve had the ability to refuse to do what God asked them to do. God warned them what would happen the moment they ate: They would die. At that moment death and its consequences entered the human race.

The evidence is clear. From the beginning, our first parents had the ability to obey or disobey God, the ability of free choice. That's Bible!

Oz

Respectfully, you're omitting the existence of the liar and the lie in the scriptures. Why are you doing this?

 

[childeye]

Nope, sorry but you have sought to impose your will on the text. In verse 16 God declared that he and ultimately they were free to choose to eat from any tree in the Garden. Now, remembering that the Bible, as is the case with any written work, must be held in context to begin to understand any hidden or even openly exposed meaning, God gives him/them the first command with it's punishment listed.

He and later she was free to eat of any tree but eating of one required more than the animal/human instinct to live, that one tree was permitted but was it desirable to eat of it if they died? There had to be other factors such as the obvious I stated earlier, but it upsets people to deal with their baser desires, the desire God built into every one of us meant for our mates. And that requires free will to disobey God, intentionally.

Let me add some real life experience. In late November of 1966 God called me, He made me, an Atheist, very aware of Him and I became, of my free will, a Deist. For the next 23+ years, knowing I would die in the Lake of Fire/the Abyss I drank White Cadillacs for breakfast, sang C&W and the Blues at every chance and bedded any 17 to 25 year old woman I could and bragged about my sin.

God has no part with sin and God did not build that path for me to follow, that was the free will of a man that already knew God had marked him out.

Mr. Taylor, free will is an equivocation when seen in the moral purview. That's why here you will say it was your freewill to bed women while in another post you have already said that it was lust of the flesh. The scripture says that the will of the flesh is contrary to the will of the spirit. Romans 8:7. You were a slave to the will of the flesh despite your claim that you freely chose to do the things you did. Sin is not evidence of any free will given by God.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Mr. Taylor, free will is an equivocation when seen in the moral purview. That's why here you will say it was your freewill to bed women while in another post you have already said that it was lust of the flesh. The scripture says that the will of the flesh is contrary to the will of the spirit. Romans 8:7. You were a slave to the will of the flesh despite your claim that you freely chose to do the things you did. Sin is not evidence of any free will given by God.

LOL! But just as I chose to turn from my sin, before I chose to accept Jesus and Eternal Salvation, those ladies did not hold a knife to my throat and force me. I knew God had spoken to me and still I chose to rebel. You will never sell me on the idea I am a preprogrammed robot. God wants love from us and without free will, there is no love, just mechanical obedience. I, with my free will love God for what He has done for me and that is all I can see.

 

[chessman]

When my wife asks me to chose a restaurant and I go through a list of available options until I chose the one she wanted all along, am I making a freewill choice or was the outcome determined for me from the start?

 

[Hospes]

I agree that he is writing to the beloved (I mean that's what he says so it's clearly the case). Just as clearly as when he says in the next sentence that God is longsuffering toward us...

2 Peter 3:9 (LEB) The Lord is not delaying the promise, as some consider slowness, but is being patient toward you, because he does not want any to perish, but all to come to repentance.​

I don't see any exegetical justification for thinking that Peter switches mid-sentence from discussing a promise made to us (the beloved), to a discussion of God's desire that people "yet to be saved" not perish. At least in this passage.

I didn't say God takes any pleasure in those outside The Promise perishing. That's another topic.

If I understand correctly, you are saying those who God does not want to perish are not necessarily yet to be saved and except for God being long-suffering, some of those who would perish are "beloved" and may have not yet come to repentance. If so, what do you see as the meaning of "perish"?

 

[Hospes]

When my wife asks me to chose a restaurant and I go through a list of available options until I chose the one she wanted all along, am I making a freewill choice or was the outcome determined for me from the start?

I gave up free will with regards to my bride.

 

[th1b.taylor]

When my wife asks me to chose a restaurant and I go through a list of available options until I chose the one she wanted all along, am I making a freewill choice or was the outcome determined for me from the start?

Knowing which side of the bread the butter is on and deciding not to lay it down on the butter still involves free will. For those to dense to comprehend, If mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.

 

[th1b.taylor]

I gave up free will with regards to my bride.

LOL! There marches one intelligent man!

 

[Hospes]

I apologize if I have caused you to reveal more than you had intended to in this thread.

No worries! It had to happen eventually.

 

[th1b.taylor]

No worries! It had to happen eventually.

It's known as loving your wife and that ain't bad... ever!

 

[reba]

When my wife asks me to chose a restaurant and I go through a list of available options until I chose the one she wanted all along, am I making a freewill choice or was the outcome determined for me from the start?

That sir is wisdom

 

[smaller]

When my wife asks me to chose a restaurant and I go through a list of available options until I chose the one she wanted all along, am I making a freewill choice or was the outcome determined for me from the start?

The above has been dissected previously. All decisions stem from within. And it is within that the mixing transpires.

What mix is that?

All of our decisions transpire from a mind in the state of defilement with the presence of evil.

Matthew 15:
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

In the above Jesus observes two sights. What is going on within for a fact, NOT an option, which results in the fact that we are defiled by evil, regardless. And what transpires on the outside, such as eating with unwashed hands is somewhat irrelevant in light of the obvious internal issue of evil's presence i.e. not washing hands prior to eating is not going to change the fact of evil's defiling presence within.

The pharisees were not used to being looked at INSIDE. They quite falsely thought that if they acted good on the outside, they were good. That's not the case and never has been the case for man.

 

[chessman]

If I understand correctly, you are saying those who God does not want to perish are not necessarily yet to be saved and except for God being long-suffering, some of those who would perish are "beloved" and may have not yet come to repentance.

Actually, no. I'm simply reading it for what's stated and making no inference toward those who are un-beloved, one way or the other. This Scripture is written to the beloved (I take to mean saved people). It says to these people:

1. The Lord is not delaying His promise to you (saved people). Though some might consider it a delay, it's not. [I've often wondered why God doesn't go ahead and give me my glorifed body. He has His reasons.]

2. The Lord is being patient toward me/you (beloved/saved people). [I realize many people think this passage is speaking about God being patient toward all people (universally). I don't. Why? Because it's not. It specifically says He's being patient toward you, the beloved. The Lord may very well show patience toward the un-beloved or all people universally. IDK. But my point is this verse doesn't say He does.]

3. The Lord does not want any beloved people to perish. [Again, this specifically and clearly says what it says to those that are beloved. And to them only. Any extension of this statement toward anyone that's un-beloved, Is done so via personal opinion, not this Biblical Text.]

4. The Lord wants ALL beloved people to come to repentance. Again, it says what it says and nothing more. It DOES NOT say the Lord wants unbeloved people to come to repentance. Maybe He does, maybe not. IDK. But this particular Text does not say that He does.

Simple really.

 

[smaller]

Actually, no. I'm simply reading it for what's stated and making no inference toward those who are un-beloved, one way or the other. This Scripture is written to the beloved (I take to mean saved people). It says to these people:

1. The Lord is not delaying His promise to you (saved people). Though some might consider it a delay, it's not. [I've often wondered why God doesn't go ahead and give me my glorifed body. He has His reasons.]

2. The Lord is being patient toward me/you (beloved/saved people). [I realize many people think this passage is speaking about God being patient toward all people (universally). I don't. Why? Because it's not. It specifically says He's being patient toward you, the beloved. The Lord may very well show patience toward the un-beloved or all people universally. IDK. But my point is this verse doesn't say He does.]

3. The Lord does not want any beloved people to perish. [Again, this specifically and clearly says what it says to those that are beloved. And to them only. Any extension of this statement toward anyone that's un-beloved, I done so via personal opinion, not this Biblical Text.]

4. The Lord wants ALL beloved people to come to repentance. Again, it says what it says and nothing more. It DOES NOT say the Lord wants unbeloved people to come to repentance. Maybe He does, maybe not. IDK. But this particular Text does not say that He does.

Simple really.

Again that's not the case.

Look at how the unsaved man is put together:

Mark 4:
15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

This IDENTICAL construct is shown by Paul in Acts 26:18, 2 Cor. 4:4 and even upon US prior to salvation in Eph. 2:2.

Acts 26:
18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

2 Corinthians 4:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Ephesians 2:
2 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:

In this factual equation what is Gods Intention? It is to save and uplift the PERSON and to PUT DOWN the adversary. It is not just a one sided equation. There are two parties involved. And quite assuredly at least ONE of those parties is not going to be saved.

In the end it is only GODS CHOICE who will hear. And there is assuredly ONE of those parties who will not, can not hear, and must RESIST Gods Words.

When we are saved we are put in a (supposed) position of domination, but we are not in a position where our adversary internal is eradicated. This is shown by Paul, here for example:

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

This too is absolutely IDENTICAL to what Mark 4:15 shows us. There is Paul, whom God has elected to HEAR and Saul was LITERALLY forced-placed by God in Christ into a position of dominion over his adversary in the flesh, the messenger of Satan, another entity that is not Paul.

Paul even terms the sin that indwelt his own flesh no longer I, twice in Romans 7:17-20, SHOWING that it's still there, resisting Gods Words. Gal. 5:17 for example.

These things are not as simple as most propose. Fortunately God in Christ is in charge.

 

[smaller]

Respectfully, you're omitting the existence of the liar and the lie in the scriptures. Why are you doing this?

You know why. Because that other working in the flesh IS an internal reality that can not stand to the Light of Gods Words.

John 1:5
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Do believers have darkness?

Paul addresses this clearly:

Romans 13:
12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

 

[chessman]

Again that's not the case.

What, exactly, did I say about my understanding of 2 Peter 3:7-9 that's "not the case"?

Maybe you could underline what I said about it and show me how I'm mis-understanding what is stated by Peter in that passage of Holy Text.

 

[smaller]

What, exactly, did I say about my understanding of 2 Peter 3:7-9 that's "not the case"?

Maybe you could underline what I said about it and show me how I'm mis-understanding what is stated by Peter in that passage of Holy Text.

As stated prior, and still you do not see, that God has absolutely zero intentions of "saving" the devil and his messengers. Since these bad actors have sway/influences over ALL flesh, we should be cognizant of the other side of the coin. God does NOT have intentions of saving "them." Is God Willing to have "THEM" perish?

Assuredly.

It is quite pointless to handle the Sword of God without that edge in mind, and only see people where there is much more to see "other than" just people.

Matthew 23:33
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Even here, we can see that it was Gods Own Intention to spiritually BLIND people of Israel, and to do so with the "spirit of slumber" that was put upon them.

Romans 11:
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear; ) unto this day.

It was exactly Gods Intentions to BLIND them and deafen them. The "device" used is the spirit of slumber. A spirit put upon them that was not/is not them. Same sights that we see in Acts 26:18, 2 Cor. 3:14, 2 Cor. 4:4 and Eph. 2:2.

We can and do, hopefully, proclaim the Gospel to all. But it is only by the Election of God Himself who hears and who does not.