Reasons for God's word having free-will verses

[Former Christian]

Childeye and John Zain

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

John Zain’s response
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.

I have to agree with John Zain on this one. Intellect and education are more often than not a hindrance to understanding reality. Intellectuals and the educated tend to interpret their observations of reality, instead of understanding reality as it is. This includes how the physical universe is understood by Evolutionists, whether Atheistic or Theistic; and how the bible is understood by Christians, regardless of denominational influence. And unfortunately there are many who follow them, not only in their interpretations, but also in their practice of interpretation.

How anyone can get the impression I’m overly intelligent or educated, let alone “brilliant”, is beyond my “great intelligence” to understand.

I know something of Koine Greek, self learned with the help of many others who understand the language far better than I.

In the view I present, I claim to understand something of what the bible says because I listen to the one teacher who knows for certain what it says. The Lord Jesus Christ. I claim that I don’t lean on my own understanding, nor the understanding of any other man or any institution. Claims that some consider impossible and impracticable. Especially when I present ideas that disagree with their own.

Intellectually I’m very ordinary. Some have said less then ordinary. Since they must themselves be extra-ordinary, they aren’t on my level to be among my friends. All of whom are as ordinary as I am.

I wouldn’t consider my education more than ordinary. I did manage to graduate high school, along with most in my class. With grades like most in my class. I’m thankful for the privilege to have been taught how to read and write adequately by the public school system. I’m thankful to have learned a modicum of common sense primarily through my father, but also others of my clan and my friends. And I’m thankful to have been granted curiosity and open mindedness, without which all the treasures physical and Spiritual would have no more meaning than my ordinary mind could conjure.

In accordance with how John Zain understands his doctrine of salvation of the believer, I am no doubt to him an unbeliever. The idea that Christians who don’t agree with a particular doctrinal standard are unbelievers is fully within the limits of Christian denominational thinking. Wherein the idea of endeavoring to keep the unity in a perceived truth overrides the idea of endeavoring to keep the unity of the one Spirit, unity of the one body, and the unity of the one life.

I could take offense and react in kind. I could “come clean” and admit he’s right. Or I could just shine it on as yet another example of the denominational character of Christianity. As extreme as what he said may appear to some on the surface.

In the view I present, if John Zain intends no harm in what he says, as implied by his use of the phrase “in my opinion”, then surely God will NOT judge him according to the judgment wherewith he judges. And neither will I.

According to the principle of forgiveness put forth by Jesus Christ, John Zain is allowed to make that same claim at least 489 more times. Who knows but that maybe he will be proven correct or change his mind before the 489th claim. Provided that forgiveness is not something conditional, based on asking for forgiveness due to an already changed mind, as is controversially thought by some.

Everything is open to controversy in Christianity. And in my opinion, it’s a wonder there aren’t more Christian denominations than there are. It could be due to God’s restraining hand. Or it could simply be due to the numerical ratio between sheep and those who consider themselves shepherds.

FC

 

[John Zain]

I claim to understand something of what the bible says because
I listen to the one teacher who knows for certain what it says. The Lord Jesus Christ.

So, why do you claim to be a non-Christian?
I thought "Christian" means "believer in and follower of Christ".

 

[childeye]

=Former Christian;615329]Childeye



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.

But it was meant only for the Jews FC, since it is a shadow and type for what was to come and the Jews are a type for the church. Have you forgotten that the Jews are the only people in the world who are both a religion and an ethnic race? They were the ones who were chosen to bring forth the Messsiah and that is\was their religion. Now it appears you have taken it to mean I am saying only the Jews couldn't murder or steal because they were the only ones under the law. But that isn't what I'm saying. Murder is always wrong with or without the law as is all sin. I'm saying the law Or O.T. is shown to be not of faith and therefore empowers sin and death.

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.

Well, the Old Testament is a historical document, as is all of the bible. How you make the connection that I have said it is not presently useful for insights on Jesus I don't understand.

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

Wow. Surprise. We might agree on something.

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

I understand it quite well. Whether I could have learned it there is perhaps possible but not by agreeing with them. I believe that The bread Jesus is talking about in John 6 is his self as the true Image of God. I don't believe that Image is manufactured at the invocations of a Catholic priest, but in the memory of Christ's death on the cross and why he sacrificed himself.

It is a choice as to who or what is to be followed.

So what? Nonetheless you are following someone, and if you are following one who would lead you astray thinking he is leading you towards life, you are not in control of where you are going. Nor do you know what you're doing.

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

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


You need to define what truth you are talking about before I can show why you are wrong as to it verifying freewill. I would love to have you show me to what the term free in front of will is relative to.

But I'm sure you already agree men can follow blindly and be mislead. As Jesus said, the blind following the blind all fall into a ditch. Is this not true? It is self- evident and undeniable to any honest reasonable man. This alone proves mens wills are not all free, for some are blind and can't see, so the choices they make are out of ignorance not knowledge and therefore not freely made. This is why you must explain what a freewill is free from or free to do. One who is blind is not free to choose out of any sight, and he cannot be held responsible for being blind. Can a blind man freely choose to go through the blue door?

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

Yes I know that's your view. What you are blind to is that Jesus is saying that we are not in control of our morality. He says we all need Love, compassion and empathy to be moral. Your view claims Jesus is wrong when he says that he is the bread of life. He's saying his sacrifice for us will move us. I have been moved by the love of this man that suffered the cross and all it entails yet forgave those who executed such cruelty upon him saying the know not what they do.

Now who am I going to believe? You who says we are in control of our morality or Jesus who says we are not. Jesus invites those who hunger for righteousness not those who are righteous at their own discretion and their own behest. The funny thing about Christ's parables is the blind think they see, that is why they are blind. And the seeing think they are blind, that is why they see.

Childeye said
Only in pride would we deem correction as punishment.

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

Are you able to imagine someone learning forever that God is not an idiot? That would be an eternal torment. So God teaches that men are in need of righteousness, while men deny this and claim they are not righteous because they simply choose not to be, and can choose to be at any time they decide to. As long as they believe that, they are doomed to be learning forever that God is not an idiot.

Now you’re indulging in semantics.

Semantics are not an indulgence, They are a hindrance.

Free will has to do with being responsible for our choices.

Fine, so let's be responsible by not faulting the blind for not seeing, when we were once blind ourselves but have obtained sight by grace.

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

Perhaps I misunderstood you then. Nonetheless pride is all the same, thinking more highly of yourself than you ought.

How come my bible is so much bigger than yours?

Perhaps, you are perusing details while I am looking at the big picture.

 

[childeye]

I have to agree with John Zain on this one. Intellect and education are more often than not a hindrance to understanding reality.

I agreed with John Zain too FC. Simply read the record.

How anyone can get the impression I’m overly intelligent or educated, let alone “brilliantâ€, is beyond my “great intelligence†to understand.

Oh my gosh. I didn't know your interpretation of my counting you as brilliant was a cutdown to you. But I count little kids who invent games or draw imaginary creatures as brilliant.

In the view I present, I claim to understand something of what the bible says because I listen to the one teacher who knows for certain what it says. The Lord Jesus Christ.

Jesus spoke of sin as slavery because men need the Truth? Contrarily you claim men are in control of their selves morally. How is your view that of Jesus? Show me where Jesus taught that men are morally in control? The entire Gospel of the Kingdom of God is the implication that men are morally ruled by higher powers.

Everything is open to controversy in Christianity.

No it's not. There is no controversy that Love, empathy and compassion is good. From there, all Truth can be ascertained.

 

[doozie]

I know my post count may seem to tell otherwise but I have been lurking here for quite a while and it seems all this section end up being full of "predestination vs. free-will" debates.


How about we just use the "carpet bomb" approach to evangelizing and let God decide the rest.


It is arguments like this that give the church a black-eye. How can we convince others to become part of God's family when it seems like all we do is bicker and fight with each other?

 

[John Zain]

How about we just use the "carpet bomb" approach to evangelizing and let God decide the rest.

Okay, now we have a very wise man amongst us indeed.

With many confirmations ...
Jesus sent me to do just that over a 15 year period in communist Eastern Europe.
Carpet-bombed (your words) 1200+ villages with all the gospel materials you could think of.
Average time spent in each village: 1 hour
Average number of villages per day: 8
Yes, you could call it carpet-bombing ... or even scatter-bombing.

Note: Jesus in the gospels said,
"If they reject you and/or your gospel, shake the dust off and vamoose outta there."

P.S. Doozie, I don't see these threads as arguing ...
I see them more as probing the depths of Christianity, learning from each other, etc.

 

[highlife]

So how do we deal with the stark differences in the way modern church treats sex, divorce and marriage from the OT. Because it is significantly difference with a seemingly much heavier burden on NT believers than what was ever imposed on the OT people .... either that or peoples inturpretations of the NT scriptures in regards to these subjects is skewed.

 

[childeye]

I know my post count may seem to tell otherwise but I have been lurking here for quite a while and it seems all this section end up being full of "predestination vs. free-will" debates.


How about we just use the "carpet bomb" approach to evangelizing and let God decide the rest.


It is arguments like this that give the church a black-eye. How can we convince others to become part of God's family when it seems like all we do is bicker and fight with each other?

Hi doozie. Your comment is well received and your point well taken. I happen to find the issue of freewill the main point of the Gospel since the Truth sets people free. Why does a man called a Christ die on a cross and forgive those who crucified him? How does his death affect me and change the contents of my soul? What makes one man righteous and another one unrighteous? All of these questions pertain to the will. What credence is given to the Gospel, if I preach it yet cannot answer the questions?

I find comfort and assurance among those who have a mutual faith. I cannot be moved by Satans lies if I am standing on rock.

Even though fools preach the Gospel at least it gets preached.

 

[reba]

So how do we deal with the stark differences in the way modern church treats sex, divorce and marriage from the OT. Because it is significantly difference with a seemingly much heavier burden on NT believers than what was ever imposed on the OT people .... either that or peoples inturpretations of the NT scriptures in regards to these subjects is skewed.

Have you no understanding of Grace? What burden? His yoke is light. Many today wish to be self centered instead of Christ centered.
To many of todays so called Christians want their action/sin to deemed OK. They wish to set their own rules/standards. The Scriptures contain a guide line of life...

Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
Verses 19,20, 21 are every bit as much Scripture as verses 22,23 And as much as good ol John 3:16

 

[Christ_empowered]

"So how do we deal with the stark differences in the way modern church treats sex, divorce and marriage from the OT. Because it is significantly difference with a seemingly much heavier burden on NT believers than what was ever imposed on the OT people .... either that or peoples inturpretations of the NT scriptures in regards to these subjects is skewed."

--Jesus said that Mosaic Law was given taking into account the "hardness" of the peoples' hearts. Jesus came to give us more insight into how God wills us to behave if we are to follow Him. I think this is called "Progressive Revelation."

There really hasn't been any misinterpretation. Reba gave you some very solid Scripture that clearly indicate the behaviors associated with living against God and the behaviors associated with living more in tune with God's will (I say "more in tune" because nobody gets it 100% right here on Earth). My personal guess is that since NT believers' bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit and we are called to a personal relationship with God (no more priests and blood sacrifices, thank you very much), our behavior should reflect a more intimate bond with God. We've also been given Jesus, both Savior and a model of sinless living, so we have a lot more material to work with than the OT believer did. For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required. -- Luke 12:48

 

[highlife]

The nt adds new sins that we're not sin in the ot how is that not a burden unless the interpretation of the nt scriptures are wrong, I don't know I think king David was the man and our modern church is pretty much neutered

Have you no understanding of Grace? What burden? His yoke is light. Many today wish to be self centered instead of Christ centered.
To many of todays so called Christians want their action/sin to deemed OK. They wish to set their own rules/standards. The Scriptures contain a guide line of life...

Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
Verses 19,20, 21 are every bit as much Scripture as verses 22,23 And as much as good ol John 3:16

 

[Christ_empowered]

I don't mean to sound harsh, but the Gospel is always offensive. If someone is still in sins, still in self, it is offensive. Honestly, I've been a Christian for a couple years now and it still bothers me. What's up with all these rules? That's when I take a deep breath and realize: I'm not God. Its a question of Thy will be done, or My will be done.

 

[Jman96]

IMO: I think it's really how one looks at it, such as when we are young we are taught to share, the more we get use to this the easier it gets. When we surround ourselves with these rules and try with good intention to follow them, they seem more like ways of living like a good person. Most of these are basic human rules, do not kill, love one another, etc.


Sent using Tapatalk

 

[Former Christian]

John Zain

I thought "Christian" means "believer in and follower of Christ".

No, it just means simply follower of Christ. The idea of believer isn’t really in the definition. Except by interpretation. One must use other terms to show one’s relationship with Christ to include believing. And it is ample in the NT.

What is a follower? People follow other people and philosophies all the time. They don’t have to be Christians to be followers. Originally, it was a matter of being called a Christian by non-believers. Now it’s a matter of whether or not one calls oneself a Christian. And Christianity is full of Christians.

The Christian liberals are Christians. Are you one with them. Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christians. Are you one with them? The Mormons are Christians. Are you one with them? Roman Catholics are Christians. Are you one with them. Gay Christians are Christians. Are you one with them? Or have you interpreted the term Christian to mean even more than what you have already claimed? Have you interpreted Christian to refer to those who believe only the same things you do? And if they don’t they aren’t true believers, nor are they true Christians?

Do you know the difference between a follower of Christ and one who is in Christ? Do a study on it sometime. There are many who are in Christ who are Christians, but not all Christians are in Christ.

Consider also that there are no distinctions made in the bible between true and false Christians. Apart form interpretation. Simply because the term Christian, used only three times in the NT, isn’t used in the same way in the NT as it’s being used in Christianity.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Childeye

Murder is always wrong with or without the law as is all sin.

Why? Because you say so? The Law definitely says that murder is wrong. On what do you base your assessment? Your own definition of LOVE no doubt.

Well, the Old Testament is a historical document, as is all of the bible. How you make the connection that I have said it is not presently useful for insights on Jesus I don't understand.

You didn’t say it. You implied it by saying the Law is only for the Jews. The OT is based on the Law. Whenever the OT says anything, it always refers in some way back to the Law. The Law is the basis for every thought and action in the OT. And Jehovah is the God of that Law. Ergo, apart from the Law, the OT is meaningless.

The only mistake the Jews made was to try to replace God with the Law. It’s a mistake because God is the life of the Law. But then they went even further and tried to establish their own righteousness. And by so doing they not only tried to replace God with the Law, they tried to replace the Law and God with something of their own creation. By not submitting to the righteousness of God found in the Law, they were in effect rejecting God and his Law. When Jesus came, they were already of the frame of mind to reject the Son of God, who fully kept the Law in the spirit it was intended, as well. They missed their own Messiah because they had already abrogated their own Law by creating their own means of righteousness. Christians who abrogate the Law today do no less. This is a crucial matter, that many Christians don’t see as such. Because they have already abrogated the Law.

Wow. Surprise. We might agree on something.

LOL Even a stopped clock agrees with real time twice a day. Not saying we might not agree more often than that or that you are the clock.

I understand it quite well. Whether I could have learned it there is perhaps possible but not by agreeing with them. I believe that The bread Jesus is talking about in John 6 is his self as the true Image of God. I don't believe that Image is manufactured at the invocations of a Catholic priest, but in the memory of Christ's death on the cross and why he sacrificed himself.

Roman Catholicism has more truth than you know. Mostly because of a Tradition that goes way back, and thus they have more truth than one might suspect under the circumstances of their predilection to interpret the bible.

Regarding the Lord’s Table, the view I present, is that John 6 is indeed referring to the body and blood of Christ. But according to John 6:63, it’s a Spiritual matter, not the physical matter it has become in Roman Catholicism. Eastern Orthodoxy has a clearer view of the matter than Roman Catholicism. Though Roman Catholic apologists like to think the view of Eastern Orthodoxy is the same as their own.

The Lord’s Table isn’t just symbolic as many Protestants have come to believe. It’s intended to be an experience of an eternal event. Closed communion based on doctrinal unity has no place in such an idea. Neither does closed communion based on sinful actions. The Corinthian ekklesia had about every known sin among them. Paul told them to check with themselves. He didn’t tell them to practice closed communion. They came to the Lord’s Table with the wrong attitude. Another sin in their midst. But because this matter touches the eternal, they were suffering outright, some by illness and death. Not because what they were doing was a sin. It was never referred to as that. Paul referred to it as a misunderstanding of the Lord’s Table. Rather, they suffered on behalf of their witness to the world. Their divisions and other sins were bad enough. But the Lord’s Table is the core of community faith, or should be.

At least the Roman Catholics see that to some degree, though they emphasize it in the wrong way. Creating their own problem as many Catholics only come to that part of the Mass they deem most important, the Eucharist.

FC said
It is a choice as to who or what is to be followed.

So what? Nonetheless you are following someone, and if you are following one who would lead you astray thinking he is leading you towards life, you are not in control of where you are going. Nor do you know what you're doing.

So what?, he says. The one who makes the choice is definitely in control. That he may be ultimately be deceived in his choice is not relevant. Choices that fail strengthens character. Means that better choices may be made in the future. Many who eventually choose to believe the Gospel, have already rejected it many times before. Thank God he never gives up. To those who make wrong choices, he’s the hound of heaven. Until they totally sear their own consciences.

Christians follow people and institutions. Generally more than they follow Christ or God. They are in control because it is their own choice to follow. If they don’t know what they are doing, then how does anyone? Including those who follow the ethereal Jesus Christ? How do you know that isn’t blindness as well? If everyone is blind than no one knows, even by the grace of God. There is no way to know what the grace of God is. But then you already know that I’m rather anti-Calvinistic ideas.

But I'm sure you already agree men can follow blindly and be mislead

Some people can and some people are. Not all are included in some.

What you are blind to is that Jesus is saying that we are not in control of our morality.

Seems to me he says the opposite. That would make you the blind one, wouldn’t it?

Now who am I going to believe?

Never said you have to believe me. That would be your own choice whether you do or not. Most people choose to believe what they think is right. I would expect no less of you.

Are you able to imagine someone learning forever that God is not an idiot? That would be an eternal torment. So God teaches that men are in need of righteousness, while men deny this and claim they are not righteous because they simply choose not to be, and can choose to be at any time they decide to. As long as they believe that, they are doomed to be learning forever that God is not an idiot.

For certain that’s one way to look at it. Seems rather futile if it’s intended to be chastisement. Since they are in an eternal state of learning nothing at all.

Semantics are not an indulgence, They are a hindrance.

When the matter comes up once too often, it’s an indulgence.

FC said
Free will has to do with being responsible for our choices.

Fine, so let's be responsible by not faulting the blind for not seeing, when we were once blind ourselves but have obtained sight by grace.

So you’re not blind like everyone else? I know the verses you are thinking of. I just understand them differently.

Perhaps I misunderstood you then. Nonetheless pride is all the same, thinking more highly of yourself than you ought.

That’s one definition. I don’t count myself to be always in that state. For I know better. We are to trust God and not lean on our own understanding.

FC said
How come my bible is so much bigger than yours?

Perhaps, you are perusing details while I am looking at the big picture.

Riiight! If you were, you would have a different view of the Law, as well as of free will. That’s according to the view I present.

Oh my gosh. I didn't know your interpretation of my counting you as brilliant was a cutdown to you. But I count little kids who invent games or draw imaginary creatures as brilliant.

OKaaay I really don’t know what you mean by cutdown. But apparently it has something to do with being as brilliant as a creative child. Which all children are given half a chance.

Jesus spoke of sin as slavery because men need the Truth? Contrarily you claim men are in control of their selves morally. How is your view that of Jesus? Show me where Jesus taught that men are morally in control? The entire Gospel of the Kingdom of God is the implication that men are morally ruled by higher powers.

Shades of Smaller. Sin in a sense is like slavery. But as you know, not everyone is guilty of the same sins. That should tell you something.

FC said
Everything is open to controversy in Christianity.
No it's not. There is no controversy that Love, empathy and compassion is good. From there, all Truth can be ascertained.

Haven’t you seen the threads where Christians are trying to determine what love is? I’ve seen three of them in the last few weeks.

I stand by my statement.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Doozie

I know my post count may seem to tell otherwise but I have been lurking here for quite a while and it seems all this section end up being full of "predestination vs. free-will" debates.
How about we just use the "carpet bomb" approach to evangelizing and let God decide the rest.
It is arguments like this that give the church a black-eye. How can we convince others to become part of God's family when it seems like all we do is bicker and fight with each other?

Personally, I’m glad Christians bicker and fight. If not for the bickering and fighting, I would have never known that Christianity is a man-made religion that is denominational in character. And I would have continued in the futile search for the one true Church. Or worse, would have tried to create it myself. I’m still guilty of bickering and fighting. But only on Christian forums. I’ve stopped doing that in real life.

I wouldn’t worry about it too much. Christianity is made up of those who are in Christ and those who aren’t. Granted it’s sometimes difficult to tell who’s who. But it isn’t the who’s who who saves anyone anyway.

So when you evangelize, just do it like it says in the bible. Not all are Pauls. Be ready to give an answer, WHEN ASKED. Often nothing has to be said.

You know, you could go to Japan and preach up a storm. And they won’t hear a thing you say. They’re too busy watching what you do. Steven Seagal the actor once was asked why he chose Buddhism over Christianity. His reply was simple. Christians are too judgmental. Too bad that was all he saw.

You see what’s happening in Christianity. DON’T go and do likewise. Sit at the feet of your teacher and Lord, Jesus Christ, and if he bids you, do what he bids you. Ask him to help your unbelief when you begin to sink in the storm of Christianity’s bickering and fighting.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Childeye

I find comfort and assurance among those who have a mutual faith. I cannot be moved by Satans lies if I am standing on rock.

Even though fools preach the Gospel at least it gets preached.

So now we know what you really think of those of us who disagree with you. LOL

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Reba

Have you no understanding of Grace? What burden? His yoke is light. Many today wish to be self centered instead of Christ centered.
To many of todays so called Christians want their action/sin to deemed OK. They wish to set their own rules/standards. The Scriptures contain a guide line of life...

You have succinctly given the Protestant Evangelical view, along with their emphasis on grace. As if grace and the Law of the Pentateuch are against one another. The poor Jews must have had no way of knowing that, though chosen, they were chosen to be graceless. Something like the Calvinists think that those who aren’t chosen to be the elect are chosen to be graceless by default. I hope you understand why I am in no way a Calvinist.

I guess my not being a Protestant Evangelical allows me to see something else, or more; or erroneous, if that’s your choice. Not because I have any desire to be “self centered instead of Christ centeredâ€. In the view I present, the ones who abrogate the Law are the ones who “wish to set their own rules/standards.†For I agree with you that “The Scriptures contain a guide line of life...†Found in the Law of God or the Law of Moses, however you prefer to refer to it. As described in the Pentateuch. I also agree with Paul when he says,

Galatians 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

But obviously I understand it differently. Not as abrogation of the Law. Rather in this way,

Romans 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

How can anyone claim the Law is abrogated after reading that simple statement? How can anyone claim that the will is not free to choose after reading that statement? Talk about blindness. But I can’t say much more than that because I too was once just as blind, being of that same frame of mind.

In the view I present, for the one who is in Christ, the Law and the Spirit that gives it life can’t be separated. Any more than faith and works. To be under the Law is to follow it, rather attempt to follow it, apart from God or the Spirit.

The Jews, not all having the Spirit as those who are in Christ today, failed to follow the Law. Those who realized their own situation called out to God, and trusted God, and put their own well being in the hands of God. And continued to Love the Law as a Lamp unto their feet.

All through the OT, God in various ways shows the futility of relying on oneself. God also in various ways shows the distinction between relying on the Law as something in itself and relying on the God who gave the Law. Some of those ways are quoted by NT writers as they too show the distinction.

The Law by itself is just dead letters. For the Jews, it was intended to drive them to the God who gave them the Law in the first place. For the one who is in Christ, it is intended to not only drive them to God as the author of the Law, but to also drive them to walk by the Spirit, through whom the Law is fulfilled in them. For to the one who is in Christ, apart from the Spirit, the Law, indeed, the whole bible that is based on that Law, is dead letters. Fodder for the biblical interpreters. As Paul said very clearly in all his letters. Clearly, if we’re not too blinded by a Christian interpretation to see it.

FC

 

[reba]

The nt adds new sins that we're not sin in the ot how is that not a burden unless the interpretation of the nt scriptures are wrong, I don't know I think king David was the man and our modern church is pretty much neutered

2Sa 12:1 And the LORD sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor. ...

2Sa 12:7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
...

2Sa 12:13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

 

[childeye]

=Former Christian;615522]Childeye

On what do you base your assessment? Your own definition of LOVE no doubt.

Yes, love your neighbor as yourself is what I base it on. That is a common definition of what love would have me do. Please note I must reply honestly how I would want to be loved and apply it to others.

You didn’t say it. You implied it by saying the Law is only for the Jews.

In the sense that it was delivered to the Jews was my point. Hence I said it is still wrong to murder even without the law. Please note it was not delivered to the Gentiles and this is made clear in Acts 15. The law required all sacrifices be made in Jerusalem which of course is now a moot point. The law has been rendered obsolete since the substance of which it is only shadow of has already been embraced, the Christ. So Jesus did resurrect the temple in his own body not made of stone, but of people.

The only mistake the Jews made was to try to replace God with the Law.

Exactly.

Christians who abrogate the Law today do no less. This is a crucial matter, that many Christians don’t see as such. Because they have already abrogated the Law.

Sorry FC, but the apostles abrogated the law. And as I pointed out all sacrifices were to be made in Jerusalem. God Himself has abrogated the law by giving us His Spirit. Godly Love is greater than the law. Jesus who is the ultimate authority said it this way, you cannot put New wine in an Old wineskin.

Roman Catholicism has more truth than you know.

Perhaps. But knowledge puffs up. The only knowledge that doesn't is that God is Good.

it’s a Spiritual matter, not the physical matter it has become in Roman Catholicism.

We agree here.

So what?, he says. The one who makes the choice is definitely in control.

You must be refering to freedom of action. Of course I move my toes. If not refering to that, you make no sense. Moreover, Jesus never said the one who makes the choice is in control unless referring to God. For Jesus did say no one can come to me unless given by God. This is the one area I would hope you would think deeper upon. Not so that you will agree with me, but so that you have a deeper understanding of how men were manipulated by Satan through pride.

That he may be ultimately be deceived in his choice is not relevant.

Not relevant to what? That is the whole point of everything concerning God, what is right and wrong.

Choices that fail strengthens character.

If one learns from their mistakes yes.

Christians follow people and institutions. Generally more than they follow Christ or God. They are in control because it is their own choice to follow. If they don’t know what they are doing, then how does anyone?

You really need work in this area of thought. Just because some people follow blindly doesn't mean no one else knows what they're doing.

Consider this statement They are in control because it is their own choice to follow. You just can't seem to distinguish between freedom of action and freedom of choice. Just because someone has a choice to make between right and wrong doesn't mean they make up what is right or wrong according to their discretion. To apply responsibility to a puppy because he pees on the floor is irresponsible. Sure the puppy is the party responsible for peeing on the rug, but as he is a puppy and can't help it, he is excused from being condemned for it. Surely the puppy is not in control of making himself fully understanding that it is wrong to pee on the rug.

You just can't seem to see that men can't be in control of their ulrimate destination "if" they are lost and don't know where they are at, nor where they are going. Anyone who sails the seas must have three points to navigate from and one of those points has to be fixed. That's just the facts.
Hence freewill is relative to the knowledge of God's fixed station as the Godhead.

There is no way to know what the grace of God is. But then you already know that I’m rather anti-Calvinistic ideas.

I would say all is by grace. I don't like the term Calvinism unless God's hidden name is Calvin. But I don't think it is.

Seems to me he says the opposite. That would make you the blind one, wouldn’t it?

How do you take Jesus saying the blind leading the blind all fall into a ditch and conclude from that, that these men he is talking about are all in complete control of their morality?

Never said you have to believe me. That would be your own choice whether you do or not. Most people choose to believe what they think is right. I would expect no less of you.

That's skirting the point. Perhaps you are too cool for school.

For certain that’s one way to look at it. Seems rather futile if it’s intended to be chastisement. Since they are in an eternal state of learning nothing at all.

Pride is futile, but to God who has made all things perfect in His time, it is simply the antimatter of God's consuming fire. They were too cool for school and they defined it as their freewill.

When the matter comes up once too often, it’s an indulgence.

It cannot be avoided unless we all learn a perfect language. To those who speak Truth semantics are a hindrance. To those who are deceived and deceiving, they are an indulgence.

So you’re not blind like everyone else? I know the verses you are thinking of. I just understand them differently.

I was blind but now I see. Hence the Gospel gives sight to the blind.

Riiight! If you were, you would have a different view of the Law, as well as of free will. That’s according to the view I present.

Yes I know that is your view. Why not try a new angle of perspective so you can see why I understand why you say what you say, yet say it is not quite accurate?

OKaaay I really don’t know what you mean by cutdown. But apparently it has something to do with being as brilliant as a creative child. Which all children are given half a chance.

Forget it.

Shades of Smaller. Sin in a sense is like slavery. But as you know, not everyone is guilty of the same sins. That should tell you something.

It tells me not all people sin in the same way and they only detest the others sin that they don't do. Kind of like people are not offended by their own flatulation but hate everyone elses. Good insight on the term iniquity.

Haven’t you seen the threads where Christians are trying to determine what love is? I’ve seen three of them in the last few weeks.

I stand by my statement.

Of course you're right about differing views of Love but that makes your statement only half true.