Reasons for God's word having free-will verses

[John Zain]

.
.
Please see post #2
.
.

 

[John Zain]

Sub-titled: Man appears to have the freedom to choose

:help Let's investigate some possible reasons for God including free-will verses in the Bible :help.

Believe it or not,
the free-will verses which contain … “all”, “whoever”, “everyone who” believes ...
… CAN be viewed as referring only to God’s elect.

The Triune God decided to present a Plan of Salvation to mankind through His new covenant.
God’s plan of salvation: His sinless Messiah came to die on the cross for the sins of the elect,
and the elect must hear this gospel (good news), believe it, and believe-trust-obey-love Jesus.

The free-will verses encourage evangelists to take the gospel to the 4 corners of the earth.
The gospel must be presented to the elect before they can respond to it.
Giving it to the non-elect ensures they cannot claim at the Judgment that they never heard it.
Personal testimony: During my years evangelising in Communist Eastern Europe,
Jesus gave me His 2 reasons above for spreading His precious gospel.

God's elect will respond positively to the gospel; the non-elect will not respond positively to it.
This will demonstrate to all: there is a difference between God's elect and the non-elect.
Jesus' bloody death on the cross will demonstrate God's incredible love for His precious elect.

P.S. I hope you noticed the :help signs.

 

[childeye]

I take a different approach. The freewill verses are all Old Testament verses which imply that by man's freewill he chooses life or death and whether or not to serve God. Ultimately he fails and must be saved by grace which could not be taken as grace if men were not fully convinced that they were sinners and not only unable to serve god but that God was the very cause of virtue in them. Not only that but men sought favor of God for self serving reasons being blinded by trying to establish their own righteousness. The purpose is to create true esteem of God as God. Men could not have this esteem without first knowing their impotence at sustaining righteousness by the works of the law.

This means the freewill verses you are indicating, are not freewill verses at all since whosoever, anyone who believes in the Gospel is denying they have a freewill through believing. This topic is framed in scripture as grace vs. works or salvation by faith. Of course we know the convoluted arguments that ensue through the misunderstanding of how the terms are being applied.

 

[proveallthings]

God's elect will respond positively to the gospel; the non-elect will not respond positively to it.
This will demonstrate to all: there is a difference between God's elect and the non-elect.
Jesus' bloody death on the cross will demonstrate God's incredible love for His precious elect.

An interesting observation, John. In your opinion, is it possible for a person, in a certain stage in their life, to not be responsive to the gospel message and therefore be "nonelect", and then in a different stage of life, after certain experiences, have a change of heart and become receptive to the gospel and therefore, become elect?

 

[proveallthings]

The free-will verses encourage evangelists to take the gospel to the 4 corners of the earth.
The gospel must be presented to the elect before they can respond to it.
Giving it to the non-elect ensures they cannot claim at the Judgment that they never heard it.

John, another question. The obvious observation that would come from a non-Christian about this is, the vast majority of mankind in the history of this world never had the opportunity to hear the good news of the gospel. How do they fit into this plan you have outlined? That would be my question also. Is there a Biblical answer?

 

[Former Christian]

John Zain

Why did you start another thread that has the same content and ideas as your previous thread “Who I believe God’s elect are”?

You started out that thread with this:

Romans 8:
28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God,
to those who are the called according to His purpose.
29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son,
that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called;
whom He called, these He also justified;
and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

For some reason your underlining won't copy over. And the underlining is crucial in understanding your interpretation of these verses. You underlined:

28 love God, called according to his purpose

29 foreknew, predestined to be conformed

30 predestined, called, Justified, and glorified

Thereby proving satisfactorily to yourself that, according to your interpretation of these verses, free will not only doesn’t exist, but that there is an elect chosen by God who are the only ones for whom Christ died and the only ones who even have the remotest possibility of believing the Gospel. And of course it only stands to reason by corollary, that God has chosen to leave the rest of humanity to be condemned as a natural course. Because those who don’t believe into Christ are condemned already. Thereby proving by your interpretation that when God says that he would have all humanity to be saved, he was actually only referring to the elect. And thereby proving by your interpretation that when John said that Jesus was the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, he was only referring to the elect. Which in itself limits the meaning of world to only the elect, and must be understood in that light in every other use of the word world in the NT.

And by your interpretation of these verses, among others, you have shown that the NT can’t possibly be the continuation of the OT because it doesn’t agree with it. Since the OT clearly teaches the free will of man to choose who and what to follow. And that when the NT writers claimed to follow the same thing as taught by God in the OT by their constant quotations, they were actually changing the meaning of the OT in order to give credence to their apparent claim. A lot like most Christians do today through their practice of biblical interpretation.

And thereby you have proven, according to your interpretation, that not only is the NT not Scripture, but also that Jesus of Nazareth can’t possibly be the Messiah on that account.

FC

 

[childeye]

John Zain

Why did you start another thread that has the same content and ideas as your previous thread “Who I believe God’s elect are”?

You started out that thread with this:



For some reason your underlining won't copy over. And the underlining is crucial in understanding your interpretation of these verses. You underlined:

28 love God, called according to his purpose

29 foreknew, predestined to be conformed

30 predestined, called, Justified, and glorified

Thereby proving satisfactorily to yourself that, according to your interpretation of these verses, free will not only doesn’t exist, but that there is an elect chosen by God who are the only ones for whom Christ died and the only ones who even have the remotest possibility of believing the Gospel. And of course it only stands to reason by corollary, that God has chosen to leave the rest of humanity to be condemned as a natural course. Because those who don’t believe into Christ are condemned already. Thereby proving by your interpretation that when God says that he would have all humanity to be saved, he was actually only referring to the elect. And thereby proving by your interpretation that when John said that Jesus was the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, he was only referring to the elect. Which in itself limits the meaning of world to only the elect, and must be understood in that light in every other use of the word world in the NT.

And by your interpretation of these verses, among others, you have shown that the NT can’t possibly be the continuation of the OT because it doesn’t agree with it. Since the OT clearly teaches the free will of man to choose who and what to follow. And that when the NT writers claimed to follow the same thing as taught by God in the OT by their constant quotations, they were actually changing the meaning of the OT in order to give credence to their apparent claim. A lot like most Christians do today through their practice of biblical interpretation.

And thereby you have proven, according to your interpretation, that not only is the NT not Scripture, but also that Jesus of Nazareth can’t possibly be the Messiah on that account.

FC

Dear FC, I don't follow how you come to this conclusion? God does have an elect according to scripture. The whole creation groans for the unveling of the sons of light. That does not necessarily mean they won't be used as the salt of the Earth. Wherein whoever blesses them are blessed and whoever curses them are cursed. That's why mature Christians watch their tongues not wanting to provoke anyone to curse them. For to such a Christian that is salt, he or she does not see people who are free in their wills, but people blind and lame and in need of healing.

 

[John Zain]

... the freewill verses you are indicating, are not freewill verses at all since
whosoever, anyone who believes in the Gospel is denying they have a freewill through believing.

Sorry, but I can't quite understand what you're getting at.

 

[John Zain]

... is it possible for a person, in a certain stage in their life, to not be responsive
to the gospel message and therefore be "nonelect", and then in a different stage of life,
after certain experiences, have a change of heart and become receptive to the gospel
and therefore, become elect?

Yes, most definitely, there is a perfect timing when a person is receptive to the gospel.
We must follow the Spirit as to WHEN to approach a person.
If our timing is off, the person can be turned off to the gospel even more.

But, in my evangelizing escapades in communist Eastern Europe, the Lord sent me in a blitzkrieg approach
... the goal was to get to as many small villages as possible with materials.
As this was done during the summer months, often the people would honestly say
... they didn't have time to read 3 different 50-page gospel tracts, New Testaments,
Bibles, videos and dvds of the famous "Jesus" movie, etc.,
but promised to do so during the non-busy work months of winter.
As we know, the Lord works in many mysterious ways.

 

[John Zain]

The vast majority of mankind in the history of this world never had the opportunity
to hear the good news of the gospel. How do they fit into this plan you have outlined?
That would be my question also. Is there a Biblical answer?

I'm not sure if there is a good Biblical answer.
What did the blood sacrificial system in the OT really accomplish?
Were the sins of the Jews REALLY atoned for ... giving them eternal life?
I say NO ... because Jesus went down into Hades to preach to the OT people
(Jews only, or all people?).
Sorry, this obviously is not my area of expertise. You could research this.

 

[childeye]

Sorry, but I can't quite understand what you're getting at.

Mr Zain, I am saying there are two different so called freewills in scripture. The Old Testament based on choosing life or death through the works of the law and choosing Christ as a savior because the Old Testament brought death. One denies the other, for to claim one has the ability to choose life through the Old Testament is disclaimed by The New Testament which teaches all men are sinners and cannot not sin.

The second so called freewill which includes the verses you have cited is based upon the belief that any man can freely choose to believe in the Christ as a savior effectively denying the first supposed free choice of being able to choose life through the worls of the law.

My point is to say that the term "freewill verses" is not a proper application for believing in the Christ because they inherently deny the existence of the first freewill in the first place.

 

[John Zain]

Former Christian,

I am not 100% sold on the "unconditional election" theory re: predestination,
but have had a recent interest in pursuing it.
I see the problems with this theory.
But, I also see the many verses which indicate its validity.
How would you like to explain WHY these verses are in Scripture?

This is very similar to asking one who doesn't believe in the "original sin" theory
to explain WHY all of those verses are in Scripture.

 

[childeye]

The fact men choose is no indicator of a freewill. For instance Jesus says if you are not for me you are against me. This affectively forces a division imposing the initiative. In such a case a man is forced to choose without his willing to simply because he must navigate two paths put before him. These paths are life and death and so cannot be skirted.

The term will is at the center of the sentience of man while the choice is an option set before him rather than initiated by him. Consequently the choice cannot be attributable to the will. What we see as men choosing their destiny, is therefore in reality God sifting the individuals.

 

[Former Christian]

Childeye

I don't follow you come to this conclusion? God does have an elect according to scripture.

The OT and the NT must teach the same thing in order for the NT to be Scripture in the same sense as the OT. Providing the OT itself is Scripture. If Scripture truth involves some kind of progressive revelation theory, then the view I present should be something like Baha’i, or related to a more recent revelation. What reason would there be to stop at the NT? On the say so of who? Of what man-made religion? More than half of Christianity doesn’t actually stop at the NT?

Roman Catholicism believes that its understandings of the bible are just as authoritative as the bible itself. Practically speaking, the interpretations are more authoritative than the bible, since the bible is to be understood according to the authoritative understandings. The promulgations of the Roman Catholic Councils and Popes are a practical revelational continuation of the bible. Though I don’t think that’s how they would say it.

Protestant denominations are no different. The writings of Martin Luther and his followers are a continuation of the bible to Lutherans. The writings of John Calvin and his followers are a continuation of the bible to Calvinistic Churches. The writings of such as C. I. Scofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer are a continuation of the bible to those who are of a Dispensationalist mind. But try to get them to admit to it. Only Roman Catholicism is honest enough to admit to it, at least partially. The interpretations have become the Traditions of men according to their authority. And these understandings are in all practicality considered a part of the progressive revelation of the bible.

For to such a Christian that is salt, he or she does not see people who are free in their wills, but people blind and lame in need of healing.

To deny there is free will, is to deny the truth revealed in the OT as being relevant for today. The idea of no free will comes from interpretations of the NT. If the NT actually is teaching something different from the OT, it can’t be Scripture in the sense that the OT is Scripture. In fact, it can’t be Scripture at all. Which makes the NT just the writings of men.

In the view I present, in order to believe in what the NT teaches in regard to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it must also be teaching what the OT teaches. For the simple reason that the NT writers claim they believe in what the OT teaches. As seen primarily through their quotations of the OT. If they’re teaching something different from what the OT teaches, then they’re merely quoting the OT to interpret it to mean something different than what it actually says. What Paul said in 2 Tim 3 about the OT then becomes just his opinion that even he didn’t really believe.

I am saying there are two different so called freewills in scripture. The Old Testament based on choosing life or death through the works of the law and choosing Christ as a savior because the Old Testament brought death. One denies the other, for to claim one has the ability to choose life through the Old Testament is disclaimed by The New Testament which teaches all men are sinners and cannot not sin.

There is another example beside the one you have provided above showing how Christians divide the bible into the OT and the NT as if they are practically speaking two bibles saying two different things. The matter of the Law. Wherein Christians say the Law is not for Christians. As if Jesus destroyed the Law rather than fulfilled it. Only mitigated when they try to make the unreasonable claim (unreasonable in relation to their own claim that the Law has been abrogated) that the moral code found in the OT Law applies to Chrisitans. And not only to Christians, but to everyone who has a different moral code than they do.

In the view I present, there is one bible unified in its revelation, divided only in the eyes of men. Otherwise there is either only the OT, or no bible at all in the sense of a bible revealed by a supernatural source. And why should I, a Gentile, believe in Jehovah, the God of the Jews? That makes about as much sense as believing in the Law of Moses that was the Law to the Jews only. And as much sense as believing in a Saviour that fulfilled a Law only intended for the Jews.

What we see as men choosing their destiny, is therefore in reality God sifting the individuals.

No wonder so many Christians don’t believe the Law applies to them. They’re just puppets. There is no Law that applies to puppets, if someone is doing everything for them. Or to androids. They’re pre programmed. And destiny? There is no good news for puppets and androids. They have no choice but to be what they are and to do what they do. If that’s the gist of being a Christian, guess it was always my destiny to not be one. And who can blame Satan for what he has done to humanity? What has he done to deserve his punishment? He only did what he was supposed to do. Apart from free will, responsibility doesn’t exist. Gives a whole new meaning to the idea that God is love. A God who loves because of his own decisions, not in spite of the decisions of others.

I realize that Christians don’t all understand the bible alike. But sometimes I think the bible I’m reading is not a Christian bible. Sure would like to get one of them Christian bibles. So I know what it is I’m not believin. It certainly doesn’t say the same things my bible says. Maybe I can piece together what is written in the Christian bible by what Christians say about it. Like no longer extant ancient writings are pieced together by what is said about them. One thing I know for sure is that it certainly is a confused bible.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

John Zain

Romans 8:
28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.
29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
(NKJV)

To understand what is being said here, one need look no further than the context in which it is found, Romans 1-8, further clarified by Ephesians. One need only understand the consistent teachings of Paul.

It doesn’t hurt to understand how the teachings of Jesus and Paul are consistent with one another. That there’s no inconsistency between what is taught in the OT and what is taught in the NT. That the teachings of the NT are in regard to a fulfillment of the teachings of the OT; rather than some kind of progressive revelation or NT replacement theology.

Ro 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
(NKJV)

Note: to those who prefer the reading of the Alexandrian text, refer to Rom 8:4.

This is the immediate context of what the verses in question are referring to. It’s a reference to those who are in Christ and walking according to the Spirit. Are all of the elect in view here? Not at all. Only those among the elect who are walking according to the Spirit. Unless you think that those who don’t walk by the Spirit aren’t the elect and thus are unsaved.

Romans 6:
1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?
2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?
3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?
4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Rom 6-7 are referring to all the elect. All who have been baptized into Christ.

Romans 5:
1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
2 through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
(NKJV)

The emphasis is still on all the elect, who have been Justified by faith. As seen in Paul’s comparison with being in Adam.

Romans 3:
19 ¶ Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference;
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,
26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
(NKJV)

Note: the end of vs. 26 literally says in the Greek, “justifying the one who is out of the faith of Jesusâ€.

In vs. 19, there is a bothersome phrase, “and all the world may become guilty before Godâ€. Those influenced by Calvinism think this verse refers to the Jews. For the world is so often taken to mean only the elect, as in 1 John 2:2.

Why not just take if for what it says, instead of interpreting Paul to mean what he didn’t mean? Why must the NT writers say something different than the OT? The Law wasn’t given just so the Jews might have a way of life separate from the other nations of the era. It was given to the world through the Jews.

Romans 3:
1 What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision?
2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God.
3 For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect?
4 Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: "That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged."
5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.)
6 Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world?
(NKJV)

The Law was intended to instruct all, not to just become the religion of a few. So it can be said that all “have sinned and fall short of the glory of Godâ€. Which is one purpose of the Law, to reveal sin in man (7:10). Or is it only the Jews who have sinned and fall short? Or is it only to the Jews (Paul was a Jew) that the Law reveals sin in man?

It’s 3:22 that shows who are the elect. “to all and on all who believe.â€. Those who believe in God and his provision in Christ are the elect. Or are they elect because God has chosen them, and then causes them to believe? Ephesians reveals a bit more on the matter.

Ephesians 1:
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,
4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,
5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,
6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved.
(NKJV)

Jesus Christ is the elect one, and those who believe into Christ, and are thus in Christ, are the ones who are elect by virtue of being in Christ. The ones who believe into Christ are the ones who are chosen “in Him before the foundation of the worldâ€. “In him†is the key. The key is NOT individual faith, as most in Christianity believe. This is shown in Eph 2:1-10. The choice is all ours as to whether we are put into the right position of not. But it doesn’t mean that it’s the result of our own faith or works. It’s the result of the faith and works of Christ (Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 3:22; Eph 3:12). And that is only applied to those who are in Christ.

All are called, but not many are chosen. This is part of the interpretation of Calvin. But it’s not because God chooses only a few. Rather, it’s because only a few will believe. And in the context of Jesus’ saying (Mat 7:13-14, 20:16, 22:14), Jesus is referring to the Jews. Most of whom will not believe.

Consider this,

Luke 13:
23 Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them,
24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

Do you think that God is torturing the seekers? “OK people. Line up. I’ve got five one thousand dollar bills. Only one to a customer and there’s one hundred of you. I will choose and just let the rest of you gnash your teeth. Oowa ha ha ha.†Or is this just a statement of fact with respect to the Jews? Why would Gentiles strive to enter into that which had nothing to do with them at that time? The Gentiles were grafted in after the Jews rejected the saving work of Christ. The problem isn’t that most of the bible doesn’t apply to post first century believers. The problem is that Christians through the practice of interpretation misapplies parts of the bible to all when it only applies to the Jews. And misapplies only to the Jews that which applies to all. Like those who say the Law is just the Law of Moses given only to the Jews. Which idea pretty much nullifies anything said in the OT as applying to Gentiles. Being a Gentile myself, maybe I should just stick to understanding the NT. No, wait, that won’t work. The OT writers quoted the OT all the time. Or is the NT only for the Jews? Christianity makes its religion a lot more confusing than it needs to be.

Matt 13:23 "But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty."
Mark 4:20 "But these are the ones sown on good ground, those who hear the word, accept it, and bear fruit: some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some a hundred."
Luke 8:15 "But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience.

Who cultivates this ground? God is the one who sows the word. The believer is the one who cultivates the ground. Totally opposite to the usual interpretation you’ll hear in Christianity. Everyone who is in Christ is one who has a noble and good heart, who understands the word, accepts and keeps the word, bearing fruit with patience as a result. Understands, accepts, and keeps are action words. And they aren’t words that applies to God in this context. It is well known that plants must take in nourishment in order to bear fruit. Bearing fruit isn’t just a matter of happenstance.

And I ask you? Is this just for the Jews or is it for all who believe? What does Jesus teach you? Or if you prefer to believe as most Christians do, what is your interpretation, your opinion? Taking care to remember that opinions aren’t truth. They’re just opinions.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

John Zain

How would you like to explain WHY these verses are in Scripture?

In Christianity, it’s all a matter of emphasis. One can explain any idea from the bible once one has an emphasis in mind. Then it’s just a matter of interpreting every part of the bible to conform to the emphasis.

When the Western Church divided into Roman Catholic and Protestant, Protestants little realized how much of the Western Church they took with them. One thing they took with them is the practice of biblical interpretation. The Roman Catholic denomination perpetuated the practice in a linear fashion, emphasizing history. Protestant denominations have perpetuated the practice in a diverse fashion, emphasizing the bible. The result has been the same. Tradition. Traditions of men. Through the practice of biblical interpretation. The bible isn’t being understood according to what the writers say. Rather, the bible is being understood according to how the writers are interpreted.

John Calvin emphasized the Sovereignty of God to such an extent that he had no choice but to interpret every part of the bible to conform to that emphasis. Thus he was blinded to any possibility that many parts of the bible obviously didn’t teach according to his emphasis. Calvin missed that the bible presents a two sided story. The sovereignty of God and the free will of man. God isn’t simply sovereign, nor is man simply free. There is a relationship involved that an emphasis on one or the other can’t see. Calvin couldn’t see the free will of man because his doctrine blinded him to the relationship. The influence of Calvin, whether directly or by way of reaction, produced the various ideas of free will, only a few of which have appeared on this forum.

An emphasis on the free will of man produces a conditional salvation situation. Conditional on the works of men. Which is just as biased as the Calvinistic view because the works of men are chosen by men. Yet the Calvinist presents its own conditional salvation view in limited atonement. Wherein the condition is placed on God’s choice of certain men, rather than man’s choice to be saved by certain works. The bias prevents both from seeing that God’s choice is for all men to be saved, and that man’s choice is whether to be saved by his own faith and works or to be saved by the faith and works of Christ by virtue of being in Christ. It’s not a matter of who God chooses, but what God has provided. It’s not a matter of men having faith or not having faith. Of working or not working. It’s a matter of who the faith is in, God or man.

Verses are easily explained if we keep in mind their context. Almost every verse can be understood if the immediate context is understood. The idea presented in Christianity, that one must take into account the whole context of the bible in order to understand each verse, is a farce. The denominational character of Christianity shows that the idea has no practical application. It’s an idea the only purpose of which is to create an educated class, and the arrogance that goes with it.

Is it any wonder that Christianity has taken the idea of truth and degraded it to the practical meaning of opinion? If Christianity presents truth as being no more certain than the opinions of men, why believe in it? If you think that the denominational character of Christianity has no effect on believing in the Gospel, I have many Atheist friends who would like to sell you the Brooklyn Bay Bridge or any other bridge you wish to choose, of your own free will.

When I was a Protestant, evidence for every doctrine was according to verses. The verse proved the doctrine.

Take the example of the Trinity (a doctrine my personal view of which has changed since I’ve been on this forum). It’s the primary doctrinal standard in Christianity. To the Trinitarians, adherence to the doctrine proves one is a Christian; to the anti-Trinitarians, adherence to the doctrine proves one is not a Christian. The only thing the use of this doctrine proves is that Christianity is very sectarian in its character. And character is an expression of essence.

Consider Gen 1:26, Isa 9:6, Matt 28:19, John 1:1, John 10:30. All verses presented as proof for the Trinity. But if one takes into consideration the context of these verses, one finds they don’t prove the Trinity at all. Ergo, the various understandings of the Trinity in Christianity today is based on interpretation. Because the idea of the Trinity isn’t what’s important. It’s an emphasis on the idea as an idea that’s important. It’s an idea that’s an emphasis based primarily on an interpretation of certain NT verses, even though there are a few OT verses also used as evidence.

Those who believe in one of the Orthodox versions of the Trinity can’t see that throughout the OT God is referred to as a person singular. And that accordingly Gen 1:26 must refer to something other than a pluralistic God. They can’t see that....IF....Isa 9:6 is to be used as evidence for the Trinitarian idea, it proves Modalism, not an orthodox view. Nor can they see that the immediate context of Isa 9:6 refers to the Son in his function as head of a government, not to his essence. They can’t see that Matt 28:19 is emphasizing the function of Baptism, not the essence of a Trinitarian God. They can’t see that John 1:1 is referring to a function, the word, common to both Father and Son, not to the essence of either. They can’t see that John 10:30 is referring to the function of the Son as saying what his Father has given him to say and doing the works that his Father has given him to do. Not to the essence of the Son; not as making himself God, not as the Jews thought through their misinterpretation of what Christ said and did.

Isn’t it interesting how nothing is new under the sun? That as the Jews by the first century had Traditions of men through their interpretations of the OT (something that Jesus consistently referred to); so also the Christians post first century have Traditions of men through their interpretations of the OT and the NT?

FC

 

[childeye]

=Former Christian;615017]

The OT and the NT must teach the same thing in order for the NT to be Scripture in the same sense as the OT.

Dear FC, without rushing to count me as merely another interpreter of Truth please allow me to point out that the Old and New Testament are not in the truest sense scripture, but more accurately they are Covenants. As this is the case, they can't be saying the same thing as far as setting the conditions for achieving an amicable relationship with God.

Providing the OT itself is Scripture. If Scripture truth involves some kind of progressive revelation theory, then the view I present should be something like Baha’i, or related to a more recent revelation. What reason would there be to stop at the NT? On the say so of who? Of what man-made religion? More than half of Christianity doesn’t actually stop at the NT?

As I said the covenants are not scripture. Moreover they are regarding an amicable relationship with God. I'm not sure how to address this issue you have pointed out. I am of the conviction that the trust invoved in the New Testament is about knowing the person of God through beholding the son of God, not by reading scripture. That is somewhat lost in the fact that the main way I may know him is by what he says, and this is found in what men presently call scripture, since I wasn't alive when Jesus walked the earth. So of course the Christ is a revelation of God which only each man can evaluate in person for themselves.

Roman Catholicism believes that its understandings of the bible are just as authoritative as the bible itself.

Yes Roman Catholics do see the Christ through a recognized authority. They believe what they are told to believe only because they aren't sure what to believe. The personal relationship with God is sometimes lost in the worship of the institution.

Protestant denominations are no different. The writings of Martin Luther and his followers are a continuation of the bible to Lutherans. The writings of John Calvin and his followers are a continuation of the bible to Calvinistic Churches.

Not necessarily. I broke from the Catholic church because I wanted to know what a Christ is and why all the hubbub. Upon discovering, I yet in humility and craving reassurance, sought others that had come to the same conclusions, and this assurance was most easily found in scripture and writings of others speaking about Christ accurately. Just because I might find agreement does not make me a follower of them anymore than they are a follower of me. Ironically we all are left to follow someone since God proposed the Truth and Satan the lie. We ultimately are always followers.

The interpretations have become the Traditions of men according to their authority. And these understandings are in all practicality considered a part of the progressive revelation of the bible.

Whatever, if it's wrong it's not revelation. I would point out that it's all about one simple thing, an amicable relation with God, and all he asks is we trust Him. It's that simple. Now there are differences that ensue over interpretation of His commands, but what He means by trust Him is really more simply about believing He is of good character. This is what heals the relationship. We must receive the Kingdom as a little child.

To deny there is free will, is to deny the truth revealed in the OT as being relevant for today.

You have lost me in semantics with this statement. What you say can be applied several ways all implying different and contradictory outcomes depending on what the term free is relative to. For instance if the Old Testament through placing a choice before us in the context that men are free in their wills to choose their moral path, proved we could not accomplish that which we would choose, it affectively proved men are not free in their wills to control their own destinies. So to say to deny there is freewill is to deny Truth of the Old Testament is a contradiction, since the Truth of the Old Testament proved men were not free in their wills.

The idea of no free will comes from interpretations of the NT.

FC, I don't want to end up arguing your opinion that it's my opinion that it's your interpretation that it's my interpretation. The Truth is either we are in control of ourselves morally or we are not. The Truth is self evident that we can only be morally in control if our image of God is not corrupt. Hence the Christ is bread for those who hunger for righteousness.

If the NT actually is teaching something different from the OT, it can’t be Scripture in the sense that the OT is Scripture. In fact, it can’t be Scripture at all. Which makes the NT just the writings of men.

The New Testament doesn't teach anything different. To me they are approaching the same Truth from opposite directions just like the two cheribum on the seat of mercy.

In the view I present, in order to believe in what the NT teaches in regard to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it must also be teaching what the OT teaches.

I agree completely.

Wherein Christians say the Law is not for Christians. As if Jesus destroyed the Law rather than fulfilled it. In the view I present, there is one bible unified in its revelation, divided only in the eyes of men. Otherwise there is either only the OT, or no bible at all in the sense of a bible revealed by a supernatural source. And why should I, a Gentile, believe in Jehovah, the God of the Jews? That makes about as much sense as believing in the Law of Moses that was the Law to the Jews only. And as much sense as believing in a Saviour that fulfilled a Law only intended for the Jews.

This topic is laced with pitfalls due to the semantics of words, but I will look past that and agree with what you're trying to say. I only hope you also see the pitfalls by acknowledging that those who say the law is not for Christians are only trying to say that there is no law against the works of Love.

No wonder so many Christians don’t believe the Law applies to them. They’re just puppets. There is no Law that applies to puppets, if someone is doing everything for them.

Okay, so I guess you don't understand and have fallen into one of the pitfalls.

Or to androids. They’re pre programmed. And destiny? There is no good news for puppets and androids. They have no choice but to be what they are and to do what they do.

OH my, FC. I can only laugh at the lengths you go to prove your conclusions valid against those whom you errantly think have disagreed with you.

If that’s the gist of being a Christian, guess it was always my destiny to not be one.

As I said a Christian believes God is good in character, evidenced by ones proclaiming Jesus who returned good for evil as the son of God. The term freewill is only applicable to one who has believed this. Moreover, since self righteousness is the vanity of Satan it is a good thing that God reveals unto belief rather than men choose. Otherwise some men are better than others by their will rather than by God's. Hence there can be no pride.

And who can blame Satan for what he has done to humanity?

Only God and His Christ. We are certainly in no position to cast stones of vengeance lest we partake in the same mistake satan undertook.

What has he done to deserve his punishment? He only did what he was supposed to do.

I would reserve judgment of this matter till after we come to fully understand how God is a consuming fire. Only in pride would we deem correction as punishment.

Apart from free will, responsibility doesn’t exist.

Here I will take issue with the differences between the term responsibility and culpability and more precisely to what we and Satan are culpable and responsible for. After all, what right did Satan and also ourselves have as a created being to evaluate God the Creator as less than ourselves? That is what we are culpable for. It is a misnomer to equate it with a freewill, for it is in Truth vanity. Such vanity can only lead to death and if you count being free from the God of life as freedom it is indeed a freewill albeit so is death.

Gives a whole new meaning to the idea that God is love. A God who loves because of his own decisions, not in spite of the decisions of others.

I had based my freedom on my ability to disobey God, counting it as doing what I wanted, and this was pride. For in doing so I had assumed I knew better than He and doubted the integrity of His intentions towards me and I was blind to my own corruption. But my God in His wisdom that was beyond me had foreseen this, and created a temporary world wherein pride could be seen for what it was so that such blindness could be remedied and eternal life be made possible. And here is where He suffered and died for my sin so that I may live even as He proved His trustworthiness unto my shame. How can I help but love Him?

I realize that Christians don’t all understand the bible alike. But sometimes I think the bible I’m reading is not a Christian bible. Sure would like to get one of them Christian bibles. So I know what it is I’m not believin. It certainly doesn’t say the same things my bible says. Maybe I can piece together what is written in the Christian bible by what Christians say about it. Like no longer extant ancient writings are pieced together by what is said about them. One thing I know for sure is that it certainly is a confused bible.

The bible is about a simple Truth that God is good and how we disbelieved that and followed Satan under the delusion we were improving our station. I see the deception and I prefer to believe that God is good rather than the option that God is evil. I don't see it as a choice but an imperative. For since if I am made in His image and I count my maker as corrupt, what does that make me?

FC, as always I loved your post. For whatever my opinion is worth, I think you are a brilliant individual.

 

[John Zain]

Dear FC ...
FC, as always I loved your post.
For whatever my opinion is worth, I think you are a brilliant individual.

Congrats, CE, just maybe you'll be perceivin' a brilliant light shortly ...

Jesus made it abundantly clear ... He came to preach the gospel to the poor.

The poor He was referring to were poor in a multitude of ways:
financial, health, intellect, education, popularity, social standing, self-esteem, and many etc.

Almost always, great intellect & education are a hindrance to receiving the things of God.
So, in my humble opinion, this is why FC is not a believer.

If I have a free week, I'll read though ALL of what you guys're talkin' about.

 

[childeye]

Congrats, CE, just maybe you'll be perceivin' a brilliant light shortly ...

Jesus made it abundantly clear ... He came to preach the gospel to the poor.

The poor He was referring to were poor in a multitude of ways:
financial, health, intellect, education, popularity, social standing, self-esteem, and many etc.

Almost always, great intellect & education are a hindrance to receiving the things of God.
So, in my humble opinion, this is why FC is not a believer.

If I have a free week, I'll read though ALL of what you guys're talkin' about.

Mr. Zain, for the record I acknowledge what you say is true and for whatever my opinion is worth, I love your posts and perceive you also are a brilliant individual.

However, despite what FC says, he is a believer. He says he is not only to bring into mind that he will not automatically agree with whatever we are believing in just because we say so. A noble attribute in my reckoning. I think his usefulness to God is meant to bring us together through pointing out our divisions. I therefore love to have discourse with him and test the efficacy of the Truth upon which I build my reasoning, for he is adept at finding holes. Also he causes me to laugh as he denies God moving him, While the question of Truth drives us all.

I hope you do take time to read what we are talking about, particularly post 14, and my response 17. They are rather long but quite worthwhile. Sometimes things said are hard to be umderstood due to the fealty of words and their users. I certainly believe it is not above you in subject matter. I am simply saying the first lie that caused division between man and God is that we counted him untrustworthy, and the Truth is, God is good and trustworthy. You don't need a week to understand that. Ironically, it takes some people their whole lives and some never even see or even care whether they even see or don't. Hence I say morally there does not exist a freewill as it is commonly rendered, lest we come to a true worship of God and for this we need the True Image of His glory revealed by Him and not one made by ourselves.

 

[Former Christian]

Childeye

without rushing to count me as merely another interpreter of Truth please allow me to point out that the Old and New Testament are not in the truest sense scripture, but more accurately they are Covenants. As this is the case, they can't be saying the same thing as far as setting the conditions for achieving an amicable relationship with God

An interesting view. But I must respectfully decline to agree with it. For one thing, it would mean that the OT, like the Old Covenant, was intended for the Jews alone. For another, it relegates the bible to the position of merely a historical document. In the view I present, the bible is something always existing in the present, rather than something historical. Due to its relationship with the teacher of the bible, Jesus Christ, and with the Holy Spirit.

FC said
Roman Catholicism believes that its understandings of the bible are just as authoritative as the bible itself.

Yes Roman Catholics do see the Christ through a recognized authority. They believe what they are told to believe only because they aren't sure what to believe. The personal relationship with God is sometimes lost in the worship of the institution.

Never heard it put quite that way before. But as said, I think I agree.

I broke from the Catholic church because I wanted to know what a Christ is and why all the hubbub.

You could have learned it there. Many leave religions because they don’t understand them or what they believe.

Ironically we all are left to follow someone since God proposed the Truth and Satan the lie. We ultimately are always followers.

It is a choice as to who or what is to be followed. Many follow institutions or men thinking they’re following Christ. Smaller would say all inevitably follow Satan in one form or another. And only by the grace of God can such have any understanding of real reality at all.

FC said
To deny there is free will, is to deny the truth revealed in the OT as being relevant for today.

You have lost me in semantics with this statement.

Really? I thought I said it pretty clearly. Well, no matter. I didn’t understand the semantics you offered either.

The Truth is either we are in control of ourselves morally or we are not.

The truth in the view I present is that we are.

The New Testament doesn't teach anything different. To me they are approaching the same Truth from opposite directions just like the two cheribum on the seat of mercy.

Again, I’ve never heard that point of view put in quite that way before. And again, of course, it isn’t according to the view I present. Which is as I stated.

I only hope you also see the pitfalls by acknowledging that those who say the law is not for Christians are only trying to say that there is no law against the works of Love.

If that’s all they’re trying to say, then our views are in agreement. But somehow I think there’s more to their views than that.

Only in pride would we deem correction as punishment.

Eternal torment with no chance for reprieve certainly looks like punishment to me.

Here I will take issue with the differences between the term responsibility and culpability and more precisely to what we and Satan are culpable and responsible

Now you’re indulging in semantics. Free will has to do with being responsible for our choices.

FC said
Gives a whole new meaning to the idea that God is love. A God who loves because of his own decisions, not in spite of the decisions of others.

First, your response concerning pride shows our dictionaries have different definitions of pride. Second, I was referring to Eph 2.

The bible is about a simple Truth that God is good and how we disbelieved that and followed Satan under the delusion we were improving our station. I see the deception and I prefer to believe that God is good rather than the option that God is evil. I don't see it as a choice but an imperative. For since if I am made in His image and I count my maker as corrupt, what does that make me?

How come my bible is so much bigger than yours?

FC