Salvation belongs to the Lord.

[K2CHRIST]

Actually I'm saying that there exists a such thing as purity of heart, mind and soul, and also there exists a corruption of that purity. Hence when the heart is corrupted, so is the will. As I have said before, I'm trying to point out that there is no such thing as free-will in.... the moral/immoral purview. And that is according to the dictionary definition of the term free will. You therefore would first have to understand what the term free-will actually means, and then apply it to the moral purview, before you could adequately evaluate my claim.

The dictionary definition of Free will means to be self-determined, independent, insubordinate. Now apply it to the moral/immoral purview, so as to say, that we don't need the one True God to be righteous because we are self determined or independent. Therefore I am claiming that we do indeed need the Spirit of the One True God to be righteous, and therefore we are not self determined nor independent in the moral/immoral purview.



Respectfully, this is a logical fallacy called circular reasoning. It happens by conflating choice/option with choice /decision and is the product of reasoning upon free will as a substantive Truth rather than an equivocation. For example you could have just as easily concluded the exact opposite of your initial claim based on the same free will reasoning, "I have to reject the reasoning that men can turn back to God simply because they don't". This is why free will does not exist in the moral/immoral purview and is therefore proof of God's existence. Here are more examples of this phenomenon:

The reason why people can choose to do good is because they can choose to do good.
The reason why people choose to do evil is because they could have chosen to do good.
The reason why some people don't choose God is because they chose not to.
We know that some people don't choose God because they had a choice.
We know that all people can choose to accept Christ because some people do.
We know that some people don't choose to follow God, therefore they could have chosen to.
We know that some people have chosen not to believe, therefore they had a choice.
The reason why some believe and some don't is because anyone can but they don't.
The reason why Eve could have chosen not to eat is because there was a choice.
The reason we know that Eve freely chose to eat is because there was a free choice.
We know why people obey because they chose to.
We can choose to disobey therefore we can choose to obey.
I could choose to obey therefore they could choose to not disobey.
I can believe that God's a liar, but I have chosen to believe He is not.

It seems you gone a bit off on this. You quoted in your prior post a Scripture that Satan blinds men.

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

Now you ignore what you wrote.

Satan would have no reason to blind men if men could not resist him with their will.

It's like men held captive in prison. You say that since they are captive they don't have a freewill to choose to escape. But that is silly, because the prison proves the fact that they probably do will to escape and would use their freewill to escape if clearly given the opportunity to escape. Or at least that is what the ones keeping them captive believe simply because the prisoners are kept as prisoners instead of being allowed to run around freely.

So you are saying men don't have freewill because they are kept captive. Well, I would agree they don't have freedom but I can't agree they don't have freewill because if not kept captive they might choose to escape. The very fact the prison exists proves that. They can still choose to escape, but are not allowed to escape. Of course they were imprisoned because they did something wrong. And that is what happen to men.

And the awesome thing is that God will set them free if only they repent and turn to God by faith. The heavens and the earth still belong to God not the one who runs the prison. Of course that may not be what all men want. Some would rather stay in prison because they don't want to repent and turn to God, but even that is a choice they could make but perhaps won't

Is 45:13 - I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the LORD of hosts.

So you say they are in prison and thus don't have a freewill. I say they are in prison and don't have freedom but have a freewill. They could choose God but don't. You note that "definition of Free will means to be self-determined", but men have a self-determined will, what they might not have is freedom - Legal Definition of freedom. 1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion,

You have confused freewill with freedom.

Jesus came to set the captives free. That doesn't mean they didn't have a self-determined will, it means they didn't have the freedom to fully use it because of the necessity of coercion. They are held captive.

I can choose to do wrong or right. I can choose to keep following my ways, which are selfish, or I can choose Jesus Christ and repent of my ways and be set free. I might have been blinded, so the blinders needed to be taken off, and thanks be to God that He can and does that, but we still have self-determination to choose God or not. Some men to and some men do not. So we preach the gospel, and we have instructions to do that so that some might repent and turn back to God.

And sense you like definitions, here is one on the subject from Merriam -Webster

Examples of freewill in a sentence

1. <a freewill confession of guilt made by the suspect during police interrogation
   

We can confess our sins and repent of our ways, and turn to Jesus Christ. And He then has forgiveness for us and we get freedom in Christ, thanks be to God. We have the freewill to do that or not. Salvations still belongs to God, and God knows what we will choose, but that God knowing what we will do has nothing to do with our ability our freewill to confess our sins. The awesome things is that if we confess our guilt our sentence then is freedom. But if we don't confess (which is a choice) we are kept captive and are under a sentence of eternal death.

 

[Jim Parker]

To which free will are you referring?

cute

Either man has the ability to choose right or wrong or he is a dumb beast without intellect.
No free will means no responsibility for one's actions.
No responsibility for actions means no guilt.
No guilt means that God punishes the innocent for no reason.

 

[childeye]

Cute

I'm not trying to be cute. Now come on, I'm serious. I'd thank you to answer the question, to which free will are you referring?

Either man has the ability to choose right or wrong or he is a dumb beast without intellect.

So which is right and which is wrong? Is it right to say I freely can choose right or wrong, or is it right to say I can only sin apart from God? Even dogs can learn right from wrong via Love.

No free will means no responsibility for one's actions.

Actually, it's Love that makes a man care how his actions affect others, not his ability to choose right or wrong.

No responsibility for actions means no guilt.

Guilt isn't a voluntary choice, if you had a free will you could freely choose not to feel guilty. But yes guilt can be removed and sin atoned for, which is why the blood of Jesus overcomes the accuser and purges the conscience of evil.

No guilt means that God punishes the innocent for no reason.

God judges us according to what measure we judge others. If I believe people freely choose to be sinners, then I condemn myself. The innocent are those who return good for evil. The innocent clean up the mistakes they made and forgive the mistakes others made. There is no condemnation in Christ.

 

[childeye]

Now you ignore what you wrote.

Satan would have no reason to blind men if men could not resist him with their will.

Well that's the point of deception. Subterfuge is the art of making something untrue to appear as true so as to manipulate a persons choices. Hence the will is made subject to a lie.

It's like men held captive in prison. You say that since they are captive they don't have a freewill to choose to escape. But that is silly, because the prison proves the fact that they probably do will to escape and would use their freewill to escape if clearly given the opportunity to escape. Or at least that is what the ones keeping them captive believe simply because the prisoners are kept as prisoners instead of being allowed to run around freely.

Sure, but the fact remains that a person can be manipulated with a lie and therefore the will is subject to a lie. Consequently we need the Truth to set the will free from the lie. This proves that without the Light mankind is in darkness. Hence the will is not self determined apart from God.

So you are saying men don't have freewill because they are kept captive. Well, I would agree they don't have freedom but I can't agree they don't have freewill because if not kept captive they might choose to escape.

Well you're halfway there. I would only add that the lie that imprisons them, is that they were told they were in a prison under God and should try to escape. So believing the lie, they did what they needed to do to escape and be free from under God and be self determined, and now they think they have a free will when in fact they are being manipulated by a false god.

And the awesome thing is that God will set them free if only they repent and turn to God by faith.

Yes, and all they have to do is admit that they can't be righteous apart from God and admit that they are not self determined and cannot stop sinning of their own free will.

The heavens and the earth still belong to God not the one who runs the prison.

This is quite true.

Of course that may not be what all men want.. Some would rather stay in prison because they don't want to repent and turn to God, but even that is a choice they could make but perhaps won't

Well if they won't make that choice then they are still under the lie that they have a free will, and are going to prove that they are self determined by not repenting and turning to God so as to not confess him Lord over their lives.

Is 45:13 - I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the LORD of hosts.

So you say they are in prison and thus don't have a freewill. I say they are in prison and don't have freedom but have a freewill. They could choose God but don't. You note that "definition of Free will means to be self-determined", but men have a self-determined will, what they might not have is freedom - Legal Definition of freedom. 1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion,

You have confused freewill with freedom.

Actually I said self determined and that is specifically applied to being able to be righteous without being subject to God. That's on record. Remember that free will and freedom is subjective language. I don't believe in any freedom or free will apart from God in any form.

Jesus came to set the captives free. That doesn't mean they didn't have a self-determined will, it means they didn't have the freedom to fully use it because of the necessity of coercion. They are held captive.

I think they found something wrong with not being self-determined just like the prodigal son. I know that we were created subordinate to God without the knowledge of good and evil. I know that His Word within us is what makes us righteous, which things are Love, wisdom, kindness, forbearance, faithfulness, goodness, joy, gentleness, self control, etc...Apart from Him are all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

I can choose to do wrong or right.

Then tell me which is right and which is wrong: Is it right for me to believe I'm self determined, or right to admit I can only sin apart from God?

I can choose to keep following my ways, which are selfish, or I can choose Jesus Christ and repent of my ways and be set free.

All I hear you saying is, I can choose to be self-determined (keep following my ways) or I can choose Jesus Christ and repent of my ways (self-determination), and be set free from sin.

I might have been blinded, so the blinders needed to be taken off, and thanks be to God that He can and does that,

He did that for me.

but we still have self-determination to choose God or not.

You can't choose God if you think he's a devil. John 9:39, And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

Examples of freewill in a sentence

1. <a freewill confession of guilt made by the suspect during police interrogation

This is an adjective, meaning voluntary. It is not the noun free will.

We can confess our sins and repent of our ways, and turn to Jesus Christ. And He then has forgiveness for us and we get freedom in Christ, thanks be to God. We have the freewill to do that or not.

That's called honesty when we admit the truth. “When the Spirit comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment”.

Salvations still belongs to God, and God knows what we will choose, but that God knowing what we will do has nothing to do with our ability our freewill to confess our sins.

The Holy Spirit convicts of sin, it's not exactly voluntary. We don't see half the things we do until He shows us.

 

[Jim Parker]

I'd thank you to answer the question, to which free will are you referring?

I don't believe there are a multitude of meanings for "free will." I means that a being has the ability to choose between options.

So which is right and which is wrong? Is it right to say I freely can choose right or wrong, or is it right to say I can only sin apart from God?/QUOTE]
It is right to say that I can choose right or wrong.
It is incorrect to say that the only thing I can do "apart from God" (by which I think you mean "unless God enables me") is to sin.
All of mankind has the strong proclivity to sin but also has the ability to choose not to do so.

Even dogs can learn right from wrong via Love.

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by "via love" in the context of training a dog.

Actually, it's Love that makes a man care how his actions affect others, not his ability to choose right or wrong.

OK. We'll have to make sure we both mean the same thing by the word "love." I understand Love to the the set of behaviors described at 1Cor 13: 4-8a.
Acting in love is not what enables free will; rather, acting in love is a free will choice.

But that does not have anything to do with my statement, which was: "No free will means no responsibility for one's actions."
If I do not have free will to choose to do good or to do evil but I only have the ability to choose evil then I am incapable of doing good.
If I am incapable of doing good (rather in the manner that a man with no legs is incapable of walking) then I am not guilty of failing to do what it is impossible for me to do. (As you would not punish the legless man for not walking.)

To my statement "No responsibility for actions means no guilt." you responded:

Guilt isn't a voluntary choice, if you had a free will you could freely choose not to feel guilty.

I was not referring to "feeling" guilt. I was referring to actually being guilty of sin. If I do not have the ability to choose not to sin, then I cannot be held guilty for sinning. (That's why in our courts of law we have an "insanity defense." The person charged with a crime does not have the ability to choose between right and wrong.)
If God knows that I am incapable of doing what is right and punishes me for failing to do what it is impossible for me to do, then God is unjust.

Well, God is NOT unjust. So the error must be in the notion that I do not have free will.
Only if I have the ability to choose to avoid the sin and to do what is good, can I be found guilty of committing sin because I freely chose to do it.
If I have no choice, I'm not guilty.

But yes guilt can be removed and sin atoned for, which is why the blood of Jesus overcomes the accuser and purges the conscience of evil.

Sin can be forgiven and God has always forgiven those who repent.

I wasn't talking about our conscience in my comments. I was only talking about the fact that, without free will, there is no guilt.
If a person is going to be judged guilty of doing evil then he must have the free will ability to choose NOT to do evil.
If it is impossible for anyone to do good then it is unjust to judge him guilty of not doing what it is impossible for him to do and it is a further injustice to punish him for not doing the impossible.

You have taken my statement "No guilt means that God punishes the innocent for no reason." out of its context.
If God punishes man for failing to do the impossible then God is unjust.

God judges us according to what measure we judge others.

True.

If I believe people freely choose to be sinners, then I condemn myself.

Not true. If you believe that people choose to be sinners then you believe what the scripture teaches.
Jesus told people to stop sinning. (Jhn 5:14, Jhn 8:11) He would not tell them to stop if they had no choice.

The innocent are those who return good for evil. The innocent clean up the mistakes they made and forgive the mistakes others made.

Those are interesting and insightful ideas but they are not technically accurate. To be innocent of any act, it is necessary that one did not commit the act.
Doing good does not remove guilt. In fact, we were created to do good works (Eph 2:10) so when we do them, we are only operating according to the "manufacturer's specifications." It's what God created us to do. Sin is falling short of the mark.

There is no condemnation in Christ.

True; there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
And that is a different topic from the necessity of a person to have free will in order to be guilty of sin.

I hope I'm making sense.

jim

 

[K2CHRIST]

Well that's the point of deception. Subterfuge is the art of making something untrue to appear as true so as to manipulate a persons choices. Hence the will is made subject to a lie.

The point of deception is obviously to get a person who has a choice to make the wrong choice. Deception can only be deception if a person has the freedom of will to make choices!!! Being subject to a lie does not mean a person has to believe the lie or the liar!! So the word deception in the context shows and proves man's freewill.

Sure, but the fact remains that a person can be manipulated with a lie and therefore the will is subject to a lie. Consequently we need the Truth to set the will free from the lie. This proves that without the Light mankind is in darkness. Hence the will is not self determined apart from God.

Because a person can be manipulated with a lie does not mean a person is subject to a lie. You wrote "can be"!! Of course if a person is subjected to a lie and fell for it, and that lie put them in a position of being held captive (not all lies lead to that but the lair lies to do that) them Truth could set us free from the lie. And we know we do need the Lord and the Lord sets us free, but only if we will listen to Him by faith. Not all our set free. Some will wind up in hell, even though He came to set the captives (not some of the captives) free. That proves we have a freewill, to believe, repent, and be set free, or to not choose to believe, not repent, and not be set free.

Is 61:01 ... He has sent me to... proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners.


"So freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners is proclaimed but all don't have it. So we need the Lord, but not all benefited and wound up free. So it proves we are self determined but that we don't always see the options because of the darkness"

.

Well you're halfway there. I would only add that the lie that imprisons them, is that they were told they were in a prison under God and should try to escape. So believing the lie, they did what they needed to do to escape and be free from under God and be self determined, and now they think they have a free will when in fact they are being manipulated by a false god.

God judges us according to what measure we judge others.

So is it me or you that is only "halfway there" if as we judge others we are judged?

I had a bit of trouble figuring out what you were talking about. I think it concerns this verse:

[Isa 45:13 KJV] 13 I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the LORD of hosts.

That is a verse, if you don't like it or think it is a lie, you'll have to take it up with the Lord.

Anyway, I could go on and on, but I fail to understand how you don't think we have a freewill. We make some choices and we can choose to listen to the Lord, and especially if we are no longer deceived. But even if someone is deceived and they choose to seek the Lord and they will find Him. So I tell them to seek the Lord, and sometimes lead people to seek His voice and they do find Him. So maybe I help them with their deception (and that because I have been told to preach the Word, so God gets the glory) but they still have to make a choice freely to try to seek Him. They often do, but sometimes they don't. However they choose.

Matt 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

That verse is true, just like the rest of them. So do it.

 

[OzSpen]

John,

Titus 2:11 (Greek NT) uses epepane that is translated as, 'has appeared' (NIV, ESV). The Greek is aorist passive, indicative of the verb, epiphaino.

The Greek tenses represent the kind of action as prominent, rather than the time of action. The Present and Imperfect tenses are linear tenses that can be represented by a line or a line or dots:
____________________________________ or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Present is in the present time while Imperfect is in the past - but both represent continuous/continual action.)

However, the Aorist is a punctiliar (or point) tense which can be diagrammed as a single dot

Take no notice of the largeness of the dot. The action of the aorist tense is that of something that simply happens. There is no thought of the continuing or frequency of action (Wenham 1965).

The passive voice indicates that the subject was acted upon. If the subject was doing the action, the active voice would be used.

Let's apply that to Titus 2:11 and the aorist, passive, indicative, epepane.

• Since epepane is the passive voice, something is acting on this and that something is 'the grace of God'.
• The mood of a verb indicates the mode or manner of the action of a verb. The indicative mood makes a statement or asks a question. Here, epepane is indicative mood, thus meaning it is making a statement.
• Epepane is aorist tense, so it means that something appeared at a point in time. However, since it has no sigma (s) in its conjugation, that means it is the second aorist tense. That gets a bit technical with the conjugation (i.e. form) of the verb, but the meaning of the aorist is the same for the action of the second aorist.

In English, when we translate as 'has appeared' (NIV, ESV), it indicates it has appeared in the past but there is no indication of the kind of action. 'Has appeared' is meant to bring out the passive voice of action happening by someone/something, i.e. 'the grace of God'. So the aorist could be translated as 'did appear' or 'has appeared', as long as one understands it is seen as a punctiliar action happening to someone/something, i.e. 'to all people'.

What is the meaning of the verb, epiphaino? In the passive voice it means 'show oneself, make an appearance' and in Titus 2:11 refers to the grace of God that has appeared (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:304). Since the appearance of the grace of God happened (appeared), it seems that the interpretation is meant to refer to the Epiphany of Jesus, the Incarnation (Robertson 1931:604).

If this is too technical for some, please let me know & I'll try to break down further.

Oz

Bibliography
Arndt, W F & Gingrich, F W 1957. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (limited edition licensed to Zondervan Publishing House).

Robertson, A T 1931. Word pictures in the New Testament: The epistles of Paul, vol 4. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press.

Wenham, J W 1965. The elements of New Testament Greek (based on the earlier work by H P V Nunn). London / New York NY: Cambridge University Press.

Correction by Oz:

I have incorrectly translated this Greek word in Titus 2:11. It is not epepane but should be epephane. The Greek letter phi is translated as ph, the p transliteration is that for pi. The Greek at the beginning of this sentence is: Ἐπεφάνη

I apologise for the incorrect transliteration.

Oz

 

[K2CHRIST]

I've been having this long back and forth about what freewill mean's. It seems like it had gotten down to just a case of semantics and an argument over semantics is no good, so I was asking the Lord why I was being drawn back to it. Evil spirits can be pretty tricky. But this morning the Lord got me up with visions and explanations. He was telling me, "Karl, what can my salvation be compared to?"

"It like a man about to take a vacation who would like to go to the promise land but doesn't have the money for the plane ticket. So another man paid for the ticket and left it on the table of the man who is about to leave. Yet because the man leaving lives in the dark he doesn't see the ticket in his name and prepares to take a bus trip to the sea. So a third man with a flash light in his hand is sent to the house to point out the ticket, but will that man be let into the house or be rejected?

So it is that I have paid for the ticket and placed it where they eat, and I have even sent my Spirit to show them the ticket but will they receive what I paid for or will they reject all I have done for them?"

and He continued, "Or what else could it be compared to"

"It is like a small door out of a prison which anyone can take with signs and wonders pointing to the door. Still the prisoners don't use the door. Too long they have heard the guards tell them that there is no escape. So I send in others dressed as prisoners to explain that they have seen the outside and the small door does indeed lead to freedom. Still will they listen to the testimonies and go through the small door or will they stay inside until they go out the more common way of death?

Karl I am the door and I perform signs and wonders and I gave a testimony to Jacob, but who will choose me?"

Now this is what I heard this morning. And I call the One who tells me these things, my Lord because He is. You can judge for yourself. From what I hear I believe men have the ability to let the Holy Spirit show them the ticket Christ paid for or not. I believe a door has been made so the prisoners can escape and that sign, wonders, and even people who know the Lord are pointing to that door, but still most are going to choose to go out the larger door. A person can tell me we don't have free will because we have been blinded or because we are kept prisoners, but that is not the way I see it. Yes, they have been living in the dark and can't see the ticket, but there is One at the door with a light to show them the ticket if they just open the door to Him. And Yes, they have been held captive but the door is already in place and there are signs, wonders, and even other people pointing to the door, so don't listen to the guards but to the testimony. They have the ability to choose Jesus Christ or not. And the fact that my Lord is so great that He already knows who will choose Him and who will not is irrelevant to whether the choice is there and can be made. That is how I understand it, so I preach and tell the people about Jesus Christ

Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

You would do well to choose Jesus Christ instead of sin, otherwise sin will rule over you. There is that door and that choice was explain a long time ago.

John 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

And in the middle we see a door to pasture or a home, so that door is also available but we still need to tell others so we go in and out.

Rev 4 :1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

And in the end we hear a voice calling us up with a beckoning, but if a beckoning a person could choose not to "Come up hither"

So where there has been darkness a light has been provided from the beginning. And where there were captives an escape was provided in the middle of the prison. And where people were not listening a beckoning calls down from heaven. So we have no excuses. Our not doing well was our own fault cause by a freely made choice. Our not seeing the price paid for our exist is our own fault of rejecting the Holy Spirit by our choice. And God calls out from heaven and has provided testimonies on earth, but some people just will not listen. that is a choice they make freely and so I say they have freewill. Nobody can keep you from listening to a God that is calling to you but you!!

 

[childeye]

I don't believe there are a multitude of meanings for "free will." It means that a being has the ability to choose between options.

Thank you for responding. I'm surprised that you didn't know that there are many differing interpretations of free-will. As a matter of historical fact, the meaning of the word has been debated for millennia. We might note that since "free" is a completely subjective and relative term, and "will" can mean both to choose and/or desire which are two separate things, there is ample cause for ambiguity.

The definition you have provided for example, is one that frames the discussion so as to ultimately be debating whether we are alive or dead. The term "will", standing alone, would suffice to fit your meaning, since it means to choose and/or desire. Since even a paramecium has a will and must go one way or another or even just stay put, it would qualify as having a free will under your understanding of the term. I therefore have been writing in bold that the choices/options that we are concerned with talking about here, are specifically in the moral /immoral purview, and that the issue is whether the will of mankind is self determined or ultimately subordinate to God. Your definition of the term is inadequate as a means to address this issue, and as I hope that you're now aware, I am not debating whether we are alive or dead, or in other words whether we have a will or don't have a will.

will
noun\ˈwil\
Simple Definition of will
a strong desire or determination to do something
a person's choice or desire in a particular situation


But getting back to the issue of there being more than one freewill, I would point out that there is an Old Testament free will and a New Testament free will. They both appear in scripture, just as there are two different righteous nesses. There is a righteousness according to the works of the law through which we choose between life and death, a blessing and a curse by either doing the commandments or not doing them. This presumes that a free will must exist so as to choose to act upon those commandments and fulfill the obligation, or be cursed and die.

Then there is the New Testament free will, which claims that the will is not free to do the righteous acts contained in the law, but rather is enslaved to sin. And that this was the purpose of the law. And in order to be set free from this slavery, the Spirit of Truth must be bestowed a upon an individual by God's grace through faith in His Christ. Hence there is also a righteousness that is not by works of the law, but which comes by grace through faith.
As evidence of this, Jesus says that the Truth will set you free, in reference to the will being enslaved to sin. And also the apostle Paul speaks considerably of sin having dominion over the wills of men so long as men are under the law.

Therefore I am of the understanding that according to the Gospel, these things are true, and that men are not self determined in the moral/immoral purview, but are ultimately subordinate and dependent upon Christ to have life. John 8:32, 34. Romans 6:14. Romans 9:30, 31. 1 Corinthians 1:30.

 

[Jim Parker]

Thank you for responding. I'm surprised that you didn't know that there are many differing interpretations of free-will. As a matter of historical fact, the meaning of the word has been debated for millennia. We might note that since "free" is a completely subjective and relative term, and "will" can mean both to choose and/or desire which are two separate things, there is ample cause for ambiguity.

The definition you have provided for example, is one that frames the discussion so as to ultimately be debating whether we are alive or dead. The term "will", standing alone, would suffice to fit your meaning, since it means to choose and/or desire. Since even a paramecium has a will and must go one way or another or even just stay put, it would qualify as having a free will under your understanding of the term. I therefore have been writing in bold that the choices/options that we are concerned with talking about here, are specifically in the moral /immoral purview, and that the issue is whether the will of mankind is self determined or ultimately subordinate to God. Your definition of the term is inadequate as a means to address this issue, and as I hope that you're now aware, I am not debating whether we are alive or dead, or in other words whether we have a will or don't have a will.

will
noun\ˈwil\
Simple Definition of will
a strong desire or determination to do something
a person's choice or desire in a particular situation


But getting back to the issue of there being more than one freewill, I would point out that there is an Old Testament free will and a New Testament free will. They both appear in scripture, just as there are two different righteous nesses. There is a righteousness according to the works of the law through which we choose between life and death, a blessing and a curse by either doing the commandments or not doing them. This presumes that a free will must exist so as to choose to act upon those commandments and fulfill the obligation, or be cursed and die.

Then there is the New Testament free will, which claims that the will is not free to do the righteous acts contained in the law, but rather is enslaved to sin. And that this was the purpose of the law. And in order to be set free from this slavery, the Spirit of Truth must be bestowed a upon an individual by God's grace through faith in His Christ. Hence there is also a righteousness that is not by works of the law, but which comes by grace through faith.
As evidence of this, Jesus says that the Truth will set you free, in reference to the will being enslaved to sin. And also the apostle Paul speaks considerably of sin having dominion over the wills of men so long as men are under the law.

Therefore I am of the understanding that according to the Gospel, these things are true, and that men are not self determined in the moral/immoral purview, but are ultimately subordinate and dependent upon Christ to have life. John 8:32, 34. Romans 6:14. Romans 9:30, 31. 1 Corinthians 1:30.

John 8:32 "and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
Read the previous verse: "If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples,"
The word "IF" only makes sense when a person can choose one way or another. In this case, they can continue in Jesus' word or not continue. It is their choice.
Romans 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
Again, read the previous verse: "Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness."
Paul gave them the instruction not to yield to sin. That instruction makes no sense unless they have the capacity to follow it.
They must make a free will choice to do so.
Romans 9:30-31 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; but that Israel who pursued the righteousness which is based on law did not succeed in fulfilling that law.
Those verses have nothing to do with the issue of free will. Paul is talking about the astounding fact that Gentiles have been allowed to be members of the kingdom of God. The idea was a radical departure from the previous economy of God in which only the Jews were chosen as His nation of priests to represent Him to the world.
1 Corinthians 1:30 He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption;
This also says nothing about free will. The context of this statement is Paul's addressing the issue of the divisions in the church. What he told the Corinthians is that it is not he, Paul, or Peter, or Apollos who is your source of life; it is Jesus and Jesus alone.

Note that by taking single verses out of their context, one can easily be led to see support for a doctrine which is actually nowhere in the passage. It is essential that we look at the issue being addressed by the whole passage before deciding what a single verse communicates. Remember that there were no chapters and verses until the 1500's and then they were inserted only to assist in finding specific parts of scripture. The chapter and verse numbers do not indicate that a given verse can stand alone. To do so is to open oneself to understanding of the scriptures.

So, I do understand what you are saying and I reject those ideas as being off topic. Intrinsic to man's being is the ability to make free will choices. Man's judgment was marred by the fall in that he became self-centered and short-sighted so that he was prone to do what is contrary to God's will because it appears to provide a benefit in the short term. But man still has free will.

Man also has the ability to know of God from simply observing creation and is without excuse. (Ro 1:19-20)

But to the point: (Free Will)

Man is created in the image and likeness of God.
One of the attributes of God is that He has free will.
Man was given free will so that he might choose to obey God or to disobey God otherwise, God would not have had to tell A&E not to eat of that tree he would have simply made it impossible to eat the fruit or not to eat it.

Adam and Eve exercised their free will and disobeyed God before they sinned and before human nature was distorted. They made a bad, free will choice, before they has a "sin nature."

The Jews under the Old Testament had the free will to choose to obey God and receive His blessings or the disobey and receive the promised curses.

The Jews and Gentiles of the New Testament have the free will to either believe in Jesus and do His will or to reject Hem and do their own will.

Free will has not changed. God has at no time since the creation of man prevented man from having free will and from acting on that free will.

If man does not have free will to avoid sin then man is not guilty of any sin.
If God does not allow man to exercise his free will and choose to do good and then punishes man for not choosing to do good then God is unjust. He is punishing an innocent man for doing not doing what is impossible for him to do.
If God does not allow man to exercise his free will so as to avoid sin then God is guilty of all man's sin because He has given man no choice but to sin and prevented him from doing good.

I don't think there is any way around those statements.

And I see the elaboration of free will into multiple categories as an obscuring of the core issue. (Not by you. I don't believe you just made that stuff up. I assume you got it from a source which you believe to be reliable.)

Calvinism falls on the issue of free will.
If man does not have free will then no one is guilty of any sin including Adam and Eve's "original sin."

Without free will there is no such thing as sin. What any man does is only what God has programmed him to do. If what he does is evil then it is because God programmed him to do evil and it was God's doing, not the man's.

If we have no free will we are only biological machines which God has programmed to act in specific ways. If the programmed ways are evil then it is the programmer's responsibility, not the machine's. The programmer "predestined" the actions of the human machine and must take responsibility for what his machines do.

It is only that man can, by an act of free will, choose between good and evil that man can be deemed guilty by knowingly choosing evil.

I hope I'm making sense.

iakov the fool 2

 

[OzSpen]

John 8:32 "and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
Read the previous verse: "If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples,"
The word "IF" only makes sense when a person can choose one way or another. In this case, they can continue in Jesus' word or not continue. It is their choice.
Romans 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
Again, read the previous verse: "Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness."
Paul gave them the instruction not to yield to sin. That instruction makes no sense unless they have the capacity to follow it.
They must make a free will choice to do so.
Romans 9:30-31 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; but that Israel who pursued the righteousness which is based on law did not succeed in fulfilling that law.
Those verses have nothing to do with the issue of free will. Paul is talking about the astounding fact that Gentiles have been allowed to be members of the kingdom of God. The idea was a radical departure from the previous economy of God in which only the Jews were chosen as His nation of priests to represent Him to the world.
1 Corinthians 1:30 He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption;
This also says nothing about free will. The context of this statement is Paul's addressing the issue of the divisions in the church. What he told the Corinthians is that it is not he, Paul, or Peter, or Apollos who is your source of life; it is Jesus and Jesus alone.

Note that by taking single verses out of their context, one can easily be led to see support for a doctrine which is actually nowhere in the passage. It is essential that we look at the issue being addressed by the whole passage before deciding what a single verse communicates. Remember that there were no chapters and verses until the 1500's and then they were inserted only to assist in finding specific parts of scripture. The chapter and verse numbers do not indicate that a given verse can stand alone. To do so is to open oneself to understanding of the scriptures.

So, I do understand what you are saying and I reject those ideas as being off topic. Intrinsic to man's being is the ability to make free will choices. Man's judgment was marred by the fall in that he became self-centered and short-sighted so that he was prone to do what is contrary to God's will because it appears to provide a benefit in the short term. But man still has free will.

Man also has the ability to know of God from simply observing creation and is without excuse. (Ro 1:19-20)

But to the point: (Free Will)

Man is created in the image and likeness of God.
One of the attributes of God is that He has free will.
Man was given free will so that he might choose to obey God or to disobey God otherwise, God would not have had to tell A&E not to eat of that tree he would have simply made it impossible to eat the fruit or not to eat it.

Adam and Eve exercised their free will and disobeyed God before they sinned and before human nature was distorted. They made a bad, free will choice, before they has a "sin nature."

The Jews under the Old Testament had the free will to choose to obey God and receive His blessings or the disobey and receive the promised curses.

The Jews and Gentiles of the New Testament have the free will to either believe in Jesus and do His will or to reject Hem and do their own will.

Free will has not changed. God has at no time since the creation of man prevented man from having free will and from acting on that free will.

If man does not have free will to avoid sin then man is not guilty of any sin.
If God does not allow man to exercise his free will and choose to do good and then punishes man for not choosing to do good then God is unjust. He is punishing an innocent man for doing not doing what is impossible for him to do.
If God does not allow man to exercise his free will so as to avoid sin then God is guilty of all man's sin because He has given man no choice but to sin and prevented him from doing good.

I don't think there is any way around those statements.

And I see the elaboration of free will into multiple categories as an obscuring of the core issue. (Not by you. I don't believe you just made that stuff up. I assume you got it from a source which you believe to be reliable.)

Calvinism falls on the issue of free will.
If man does not have free will then no one is guilty of any sin including Adam and Eve's "original sin."

Without free will there is no such thing as sin. What any man does is only what God has programmed him to do. If what he does is evil then it is because God programmed him to do evil and it was God's doing, not the man's.

If we have no free will we are only biological machines which God has programmed to act in specific ways. If the programmed ways are evil then it is the programmer's responsibility, not the machine's. The programmer "predestined" the actions of the human machine and must take responsibility for what his machines do.

It is only that man can, by an act of free will, choose between good and evil that man can be deemed guilty by knowingly choosing evil.

I hope I'm making sense.

iakov the fool 2

Jim,

I found this to be a masterly explanation of the nature of free will and its impact since the beginning of time. You didn't need to provide an XYZ definition of free will as your examples expounded it precisely.

I came away from your teaching with a clearer understanding of free will. What a marvellous gift of teaching God has given you (see Eph 4:11-12 ESV). I was equipped for the work of ministry by your precise explanations.

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

Jim,

I found this to be a masterly explanation of the nature of free will and its impact since the beginning of time. You didn't need to provide an XYZ definition of free will as your examples expounded it precisely.

I came away from your teaching with a clearer understanding of free will. What a marvellous gift of teaching God has given you (see Eph 4:11-12 ESV). I was equipped for the work of ministry by your precise explanations.

Oz

Thank you.
I try.

jim

 

[K2CHRIST]

2 Tim 2:14 Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers.

Freewill might have different definitions, but if we are arguing over the definitions instead of people seeking the Lord or not, then we missed the Issue!

Salvation belongs to the Lord, but He already went to the cross! We have to choose God, which means seek Him. Jesus said "It is finished", so while there are obstacles place in our way of seeing this it is still finished. Whether we say men do not have freewill but only a will because of the obstacles placed in their path, or whether we say men have freewill because God gave men the freedom to choose Him or not, is unimportant. What's important is that we choose Him and not the one placing the obstacles in our path because that evil one hates God.

 

[Jim Parker]

Freewill might have different definitions, but if we are arguing over the definitions instead of people seeking the Lord or not, then we missed the Issue!

On one level you are correct.
But it is important to aggressively root out false teaching. It is something the Church has had to do since her first days beginning with the erroneous teaching that Gentiles had to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses to be saved. (Act 15:5)

iakov the fool 2

 

[OzSpen]

On one level you are correct.
But it is important to aggressively root out false teaching. It is something the Church has had to do since her first days beginning with the erroneous teaching that Gentiles had to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses to be saved. (Act 15:5)

iakov the fool 2

Jim,

In addition to some of the heretical teachings that came through Gnosticism, Pelagianism, and Arianism, the church has had to deal with the view of double predestination that was perpetrated as far back as the 4th-5th century with St Augustine of Hippo who wrote:

[God] used the very will of the creature which was working in opposition to the Creator’s will as an instrument for carrying out His will, the supremely Good thus turning to good account even what is evil, to the condemnation of those whom in His justice he has predestined to punishment (The Enchiridion, ch 100, emphasis added).

[The human] race we have distributed into two parts, the one consisting of those who live according to man, the other of those who live according to God. And these we also mystically call the two cities, or the two communities of men, of which the one is predestined to reign eternally with God, and the other to suffer eternal punishment with the devil (The City of God, Bk 5, ch 1, emphasis added).

It was Augustine who introduced this view that has bugged the Christian church, primarily since the time of the Reformation when Augustine's doctrine was resurrected by Calvin himself. Documentation of Calvin's view is in my article:
Did John Calvin believe in double predestination?

There was also a battle with the heretical doctrine of Unitarianism in the early church. Some of this is documented in Mark Mattison, 'Biblical Unitarianism from the Early Church through the Middle Ages'.

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

It was Augustine who introduced this view that has bugged the Christian church, primarily since the time of the Reformation when Augustine's doctrine was resurrected by Calvin himself.

Absolutely.
I had commented earlier somewhere that it is ironic that those who are so facile in accusing the RCC of all kinds of heresy are unaware that their own favorite heresies come directly from the RC saints Augustine of Hippo and Anselm of Canterbury. This is a good reason for the individual to know something about the teaching of the early church. It is also cause for Seminaries to avoid getting too deeply into the teachings of the early church; the truth might slip out. :shock

[QUOTE}There was also a battle with the heretical doctrine of Unitarianism in the early church. Some of this is documented in Mark Mattison, 'Biblical Unitarianism from the Early Church through the Middle Ages'. [/QUOTE]

in 19th century USA, the major seminaries, (Harvard, Yale, etc.) were all Unitarian.
The slide had begun.

jim

 

[OzSpen]

Absolutely.
I had commented earlier somewhere that it is ironic that those who are so facile in accusing the RCC of all kinds of heresy are unaware that their own favorite heresies come directly from the RC saints Augustine of Hippo and Anselm of Canterbury. This is a good reason for the individual to know something about the teaching of the early church. It is also cause for Seminaries to avoid getting too deeply into the teachings of the early church; the truth might slip out. :shock

[QUOTE}There was also a battle with the heretical doctrine of Unitarianism in the early church. Some of this is documented in Mark Mattison, 'Biblical Unitarianism from the Early Church through the Middle Ages'.

in 19th century USA, the major seminaries, (Harvard, Yale, etc.) were all Unitarian.
The slide had begun.

jim[/QUOTE]

Jim,

Historically and theologically, I knew that Harvard & Yale became Unitarian. Also, Princeton seminary was becoming theologically liberal as well.

I lead a mid-week seniors' Bible study for the Wesleyan Methodist church locally and a fellow in the group from a local Baptist church was having difficulty with Colossians 1:15, 'Firstborn of all creation', as his pastor/preacher glossed over this verse when he preached the previous Sunday. This left this fellow with all sorts of questions as he understood the deity of Christ meant he had eternally existed. However, this 'firstborn of creation' stumped him.

It really does give me theological heartache when pastors gloss over difficult passages in their preaching. So for the next week, I prepared this teaching and uploaded to my homepage, Heresy or not: First-born of creation.

As you've indicated, it's important for us to know the early church fathers and what they taught following the deaths of the 12 apostles. It wasn't long before some error crept into the churches. I guess what this fellow experienced at a local Baptist church is not that much different from what was happening in the early church.

I sensed tongue in cheek for your statement: ' It is also cause for Seminaries to avoid getting too deeply into the teachings of the early church; the truth might slip out'.

However, I will add that in reading the church fathers I've had to have them on the computer screen while I checked out their teachings with Scripture on the desk. These great, early teachers were not flawless in their understanding of Scripture, but they had far less tools then we have. One of these days when I have the time, I'd love to get into where the Fathers learned their NT Greek grammar.

My sweetheart is calling for lunch, so I had better be an obedient, loving husband.

Blessings,
Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

One of these days when I have the time, I'd love to get into where the Fathers learned their NT Greek grammar.

Well, for the Greek fathers, it was their native tongue.
One of the details among many which eventually led to the east-west schism was the communication problem of Latin-Greek translation of correspondence. Look at the problems we have understanding one another here in an all English forum!

I sensed tongue in cheek for your statement: ' It is also cause for Seminaries to avoid getting too deeply into the teachings of the early church; the truth might slip out'.

Yes indeed.
The consensus of the Eastern (Greek) fathers supports free will. Augustine's teaching was a digression from the norm and the reason why, in the East, he is referred to as "Blessed" Augustine rather than "Saint" Augustine. At Fuller Theological Seminary, we read Anselm of Canterbury's 11th century "Cur Deus Homo" but no mention of 4th century, Athanasuis' On the Incarnation was made. HE was mentioned as the champion of trinitarian Christianity but no mentions was made of the book which directly refutes Anselm's judicial satisfaction view of the atonement which now dominates western Christianity.

One hopes that they instructors were unfamiliar with the book.

My sweetheart is calling for lunch, so I had better be an obedient, loving husband.

"Happy wife - happy life."
And
"You can be right or you can be happy."

jim

 

[childeye]

John 8:32 "and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
Read the previous verse: "If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples,"
The word "IF" only makes sense when a person can choose one way or another. In this case, they can continue in Jesus' word or not continue. It is their choice.

Well that makes perfect sense. Disciple of Christ means to adhere to the teachings of Christ just as a student does with his teacher. Hence if I don't follow his teachings, I will never see the Truth. After all, knowledge sets people free from ignorance.
And I can also see that Jesus teaches that every one who commits sin is a servant of sin. That's good to know, since in my ignorance, I thought that I freely chose to be righteous through performing the law. But since in all honesty I failed to keep the law, therefore I also thought that I had freely chose to sin. It had never even crossed my mind that I was anyone's servant. I presumed I was self-determined

31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

Romans 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
Again, read the previous verse: "Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness."
Paul gave them the instruction not to yield to sin. That instruction makes no sense unless they have the capacity to follow it.
They must make a free will choice to do so.

Thanks to Jesus, I have the ability to do so and not of my own power apart from him. Sin no longer has dominion over me because I am no longer under the law but under grace. My righteousness is not dependent upon my will but upon God's grace.

All Paul is saying is that we must yield to God and not yield to sin. He is not saying we can choose not to yield to God. You're actually making my point with the word "must" since this is a choice of necessity due to Christ's Spirit living in me. Keeping in mind that we are strictly discussing the moral/immoral purview, you are presenting that free will according to your definition exists somewhere in the conversion process between the carnal to the spiritual.

But what I am saying, is that while we were under the law supposing we were freely choosing not to sin, we were actually (subordinate) to sin. Hence the phrase "dominion over you" is used. We already know that during conversion from the carnal mind to the spiritual mind, we must yield to God's Spirit to be converted, therefore we start out in the carnal mind. And to what shall we yield to so as to not yield our members to sin? Galatians 5:16.
16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Therefore the will of mankind cannot be self determined in the moral/immoral purview.
Consequently, The will that began subordinate to sin is converted to be subordinate to God which is why we confess Jesus as Lord via the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

Romans 9:30-31 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; but that Israel who pursued the righteousness which is based on law did not succeed in fulfilling that law.
Those verses have nothing to do with the issue of free will. Paul is talking about the astounding fact that Gentiles have been allowed to be members of the kingdom of God. The idea was a radical departure from the previous economy of God in which only the Jews were chosen as His nation of priests to represent Him to the world.

Since we are discussing whether mankind is self-determined in the moral/immoral purview, or not, the issue of men trying to pursue righteousness and not attaining it, and men not trying to pursue it, but attaining it, is quite relevant. If you are at odds with me and trying to establish that we are self-determined, your commentary should be focused on proving in scripture that a righteousness unto salvation is produced by our will without being subservient to Christ. 2 Corinthians 10:5.

1 Corinthians 1:30 He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption;
This also says nothing about free will. The context of this statement is Paul's addressing the issue of the divisions in the church. What he told the Corinthians is that it is not he, Paul, or Peter, or Apollos who is your source of life; it is Jesus and Jesus alone.

Respectfully, the context of the scripture is why God chooses the lowly things over the high things when He calls through the Gospel, so that no flesh may glory. Of course this scripture is therefore not about free will according to your definition, but rather why God's foolishness is greater than the wisdom of men.

So since God has preferred that the lowly are called to put to nothing the high and mighty, and the wise and prudent, then we who are called are nothing and it is not right to imagine ourselves self determined, but is incumbent upon us who are called, to be eternally thankful in all humility to God, for Life, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, in Christ, and it cannot be attributed to one's self. So that no flesh may glory.

So, I do understand what you are saying and I reject those ideas as being off topic. Intrinsic to man's being is the ability to make free will choices.

Yes I agree that men can make voluntary choices, but a soul that is pure of heart volunteers differently than one that is defiled.

Man's judgment was marred by the fall in that he became self-centered and short-sighted so that he was prone to do what is contrary to God's will because it appears to provide a benefit in the short term. But man still has free will.[/QUOTE] I would guess that if God gave men over to a reprobate mind to
do those things that are inconvenient, to be filled with vlie affections, and all manner of unrighteousness, you would say they had a free will.

Man also has the ability to know of God from simply observing creation and is without excuse. (Ro 1:19-20)

Despite the fact that we make choices, I am convinced that it is God Who bestows wisdom upon men so as to make wise choices. To say that we are self-determined and wise and righteous of our own devise is to become vain and unthankful to God for His attributes being manifested in us. Hence there is no excuse for worshipping the creation over the Creator, and not esteeming God as God. Look at this scripture: Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Now look at what I said above. then we who are called are nothing and it is not right to imagine ourselves self determined, but is incumbent upon us who are called, to be eternally thankful in all humility to God, for Life, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, in Christ, and it cannot be attributed to one's self. So that no flesh may glory.

 

[OzSpen]

After all, knowledge sets people free from ignorance.

childeye,

This is not necessarily true. Knowledge can lead people to bondage. Have you ever seen what JW, Mormon & Unitarian knowledge can do to people in binding them to ideology?

There is a way to obtain knowledge that leads to God's kind of freedom. The Book of Proverbs gives plenty of examples of exhortations to such knowledge.

1. This is where the proper knowledge MUST start, 'The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction' (Prov 1:7 ESV).
2. Prov 2:10 (ESV), 'For wisdom will come into your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul'.
   
3. Prov 18:15 (ESV) states, 'An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge'.
4. Prov 8:10 (ESV), 'Take my instruction instead of silver, and knowledge rather than choice gold'.
5. Prov 12:1, 'Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid'.
   
6. Prov 15:14 (ESV), 'The heart of him who has understanding seeks knowledge, but the mouths of fools feed on folly'.

The key to this kind of knowledge if the fear of the Lord that is the beginning of true knowledge (Prov 1:7 ESV). By this, I do not mean to demean engineering, IT, accounting or scientific knowledge, but to exalt knowledge concerning the realities of the universe and God's involvement in it.

Oz