Those who don't believe in free-will, why do so many verse's claim it??

[reba]

When i look back over my life... i can see the hand of God.


And what did adam and eve choose?

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Smaller, I can agree that there are charlatans in the religious realm..as in every area of mankind. However, I would caution you to consider that it is the Holy Spirit who bestows mercy so that one can gain heaven.

And, that mercy will not always be available to any particular individual...meaning that if the Holy Spirit impresses you to come to God, if you choose not to, you may miss your opportunity.

"My spirit shall not always strive with man." Genesis 6:3
"Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your heart." Hebrews 3:15

And we are told to :

NASB (©1995) Jude 1:23,,,
save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh


That sounds pretty urgent to me.

AMEN!!!

 

[Grubal Muruch]

The key word being influenced, not controlled, coerced or directed. The serpent in the garden influenced Adam and Eve. He did not hold a gun to their heads and force them to sin.

AMEN!!!

 

[Grubal Muruch]

When i look back over my life... i can see the hand of God.


And what did adam and eve choose?

Adam, "choose" to sin...

 

[glorydaz]

None are born as believers. All are prior blinded in their minds by the god of this world. That is 'why' they are 'unbelievers.'

If you believe as you've stated, then you don't believe God when He says man is without excuse, and you have totally discounted the conscience that has been given by God to all men.

God has revealed himself to all men.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

They knew God in the beginning... man isn't an unbeliever, he just sins. Thus man has no excuse.

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. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

"Unbelievers" are those who will not put their faith in the Creator because they love sin more than God.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

If you believe as you've stated, then you don't believe God when He says man is without excuse, and you have totally discounted the conscience that has been given by God to all men.

God has revealed himself to all men.


They knew God in the beginning... man isn't an unbeliever, he just sins. Thus man has no excuse.


"Unbelievers" are those who will not put their faith in the Creator because they love sin more than God.

Amen!!!

 

[Grubal Muruch]

If you believe as you've stated, then you don't believe God when He says man is without excuse, and you have totally discounted the conscience that has been given by God to all men.

God has revealed himself to all men.


They knew God in the beginning... man isn't an unbeliever, he just sins. Thus man has no excuse.


"Unbelievers" are those who will not put their faith in the Creator because they love sin more than God.

It's true, we are "born" into sin. We only become "believers" when we receive Christ through faith...AMEN!!!

 

[glorydaz]

It's true, we are "born" into sin. We only become "believers" when we receive Christ through faith...AMEN!!!

Yes, we aren't born with sin in us...we are born into a world of sin. We aren't sinners until we actually sin.

We see in Romans 1, that the things of God are "clearly seen" by man...thus he is without excuse.
Romans 1 also states that men "knew God" but did not to glorify Him. That's a choice man makes, since the things of God are clearly seen by man.

So, the word unbeliever is often taken as those who believe there is no God, when it's actually those who refuse to trust in God....not believing through faith, as you say.

 

[glorydaz]

Sorry, I don't view the Gospel as a business deal with 'opportunity' involved. To me that is a worldly way of viewing the matters.

The 'buy now or you miss your opportunity' gospel is a product of sales commercialism employed by those seeking to increase their business partners.

Y'all 'freewillers' can claim you UNblinded yourselves. Whoopee on YOU!

But I don't believe that is the case.

There is a blinded person and AN ENEMY WHO BLINDS THEM in their MINDS.

Those who do not KNOW THE DIFFERENCE remain blind to the fact themselves and see nothing regardless of their claims of freeing themselves. They apparently forgot who blinded them prior. I attribute that work to the DEVIL. Such blinded ones didn't even KNOW they were blind and thought it was ONLY THEM-selv-es. That is NOT the case whatsoever.

But hey, if you are in need of an instrument of self glorification for your personal reward justifications and a tool for the damnation of the blinded unbelievers, then freewill is your game all the way.

This is another case of taking a few isolated texts and claiming they support one's personal belief, AND it's giving too much power to satan. No man is so blinded that the Light of the glorious Gospel of Christ can't penetrate into the heart of man. Greater is He that is in me than he that is in the world........The Gospel is more powerful than any blinding satan may inflict on man through sin.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Yes, we aren't born with sin in us...we are born into a world of sin. We aren't sinners until we actually sin.

We see in Romans 1, that the things of God are "clearly seen" by man...thus he is without excuse.
Romans 1 also states that men "knew God" but did not to glorify Him. That's a choice man makes, since the things of God are clearly seen by man.

So, the word unbeliever is often taken as those who believe there is no God, when it's actually those who refuse to trust in God....not believing through faith, as you say.

Here's a thought, We're ALL born "physically" with the "manifestation" of original sin, in that, from birth we are physically susceptible to pain, disease, death, etc,. If in fact we were born without the effects of, "original sin" our bodies would not be "susceptible" to the physical elements, due to the fact "original sin" would not be "imputed" to us...However, even though, (physically) we are born with the effects of "original sin" Spiritually (within our spirit essence) we have not yet been guilty of any personal sins, until we get to an "age of accountability, and begin to commit sin of our own." In conclusion, we are, "physically" affected by "original sin, but "Spiritually" we are not, at birth. There's food for thought...

 

[Gazelle]

Yes, we aren't born with sin in us...we are born into a world of sin. We aren't sinners until we actually sin.

Yeah... ah I have to disagree with this statement.

We are all born with sin because of the "fall" in the garden. The New Testament repeats this idea frequently—“that through the disobedience of one man, death comes into the world.”

"We don’t like to be held accountable for what somebody else did, although there are occasions in our own system of justice where we recognize a certain level of culpability for what another person does through the means of criminal conspiracy."

If we object in principle to God’s allowing one person to act for another, that would be the end of the Christian faith. Our whole redemption rests on the same principle, that through the actions of Christ we are redeemed.

...all have sinned and come short of the glory of God....

What sin would a baby have committed? None. Babies aren't bad! But they have the sin of their father through birth. (Babies and young children do not go to hell because they have not REJECTED Christ... another theological discussion for some other thread.) Christ's blood covers them until they have that knowledge of "good and evil" discovered by the Adams in the garden.

without the effects of, "original sin" our bodies would not be "susceptible" to the physical elements

Right. We have many verses to draw upon, the corruptible needing to put on incorruptible, etc.

 

[Gazelle]

Y'all 'freewillers' can claim you UNblinded yourselves. Whoopee on YOU!

Wow smaller... I sense you have other issues, would you like to begin a thread to discuss them? Those of us who believe in free will, if you would take the time to read the abundance of threads on that topic, would see that it is God's mercy and grace through the Holy Spirit that draws us to God. We have the choice (i.e. free will) to accept Christ's payment for our sin, or not. Why the sarcasm???

 

[glorydaz]

Here's a thought, We're ALL born "physically" with the "manifestation" of original sin, in that, from birth we are physically susceptible to pain, disease, death, etc,. If in fact we were born without the effects of, "original sin" our bodies would not be "susceptible" to the physical elements, due to the fact "original sin" would not be "imputed" to us...However, even though, (physically) we are born with the effects of "original sin" Spiritually (within our spirit essence) we have not yet been guilty of any personal sins, until we get to an "age of accountability, and begin to commit sin of our own." In conclusion, we are, "physically" affected by "original sin, but "Spiritually" we are not, at birth. There's food for thought...

It is food for thought, and we're close. (Maybe we should start a different thread with this topic, so we don't side-track this one) But, I'll say the only credence I give to the term "original sin" is that it was the "first sin" that was committed by man. Other than that, I think it must have been started by the Catholic Church and just grew from there. Basically, without access to the tree of life, Adam faced physical death....same with us. Even those who have not sinned like Adam, by breaking God's command, they still face death along with any infirmities.

 

[childeye]

=Light;586416]This is purely hypothetical, but are you really exercising free will when you do something that you wish to do, if it was not your decision in the first place to wish to do said thing?

This is not hypothetical in my reasoning, it is the reality of creation and the Godhead; Simply becasue morality is Love, and the absence of Love is immoral, not amoral. But the freewillers just see a moral choice to be made which is a very amoral point of view which will not actually discuss what motivates the will. It's so amoral that they say to be free in the will, one must be able to freely choose to both accept and deny Love. This of course is just the circumstance of our relation to God.

Here's a hypothetical. If Love was dropped into the middle of creation, who would recognize it? Those with Love would. So the fact everyone makes choices is irrelevant since only the ones with Love would recognize Love. Oh yeah, this isn't hypothetical, this is what the Christ is.

If we step back from our personal understanding of reality for a second, I think we can see more clearly. Things (including decisions/choices) are either caused or uncaused. If our decisions are caused, then they are not free. If they are not caused, then they are necessarily probablistic. Probabilities are not within our control, and so uncaused decisions cannot be considered exercises of free will either.

You've basically described the difference between freewill and determinism.

 

[childeye]

Wow smaller... I sense you have other issues, would you like to begin a thread to discuss them? Those of us who believe in free will, if you would take the time to read the abundance of threads on that topic, would see that it is God's mercy and grace through the Holy Spirit that draws us to God. We have the choice (i.e. free will) to accept Christ's payment for our sin, or not. Why the sarcasm???

Yes we have the choice in a purely subjective way. Freewillers are saying we make a choice but so are determinists. The determinist does not care about the fact we make a choice but why we choose what we choose morally. So that Love is identified as the power of morality and not human will.

 

[glorydaz]

Yes we have the choice in a purely subjective way. Freewillers are saying we make a choice but so are determinists. The determinist does not care about the fact we make a choice but why we choose what we choose morally. So that Love is identified as the power of morality and not human will.

God is more than love. He is Truth.

Every idea we come up with should be supported by scripture. "Love is identified as the power of morality and not human will."........where would be your support from the Word for this statement? I'm afraid it sounds like nothing more than vanity. If you can show us from the Word, I'd be more than happy to consider it.

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.

 

[childeye]

Here's a perfect example. You keep saying man has a false image of God and you even quote part of Rom. 1.

That "false image of God" you keep referring to is nothing more than the idols the people were making, as you can see here...



Paul is talking about when they set up idols like the golden calf. Surely you don't think that means mankind has a false image of God.............do you?

Not if God is a golden calf or made ou of wood. The point is they don't have a proper image of god.

 

[reba]

Adam, "choose" to sin...

Yup adams sin made mankind a servant to/of sin His sin did not make you and i free.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Wow smaller... I sense you have other issues, would you like to begin a thread to discuss them? Those of us who believe in free will, if you would take the time to read the abundance of threads on that topic, would see that it is God's mercy and grace through the Holy Spirit that draws us to God. We have the choice (i.e. free will) to accept Christ's payment for our sin, or not. Why the sarcasm???

AMEN Gazelle!!!!

 

[childeye]

=Gazelle;586366]
I believe you when you say you can't comprehend this. Have you asked yourself why not, instead of dismissing so many wise presentations given you in this thread?

Here's what stromcrow asked:

=Stormcrow;586245]Were Adam and Eve free to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil if they wished to do so?

Okay Gazelle, I'm going to take the time to walk through this with you.
Stromcrows question is a loaded question. Please note stormcrow does not say whether they are under the commandment of God at the time, nor pre-temptation, nor after temptation. Well of course they could eat if they wished to since they did. So here's the rub. But they were commanded not to and this is the reality. So if in fact they desired to eat when they had been told by God not to eat because it would kill them, they would already have distrusted God wholesale in their hearts.

So stormcrow actually bypassed the issue by presenting in the question the query of whether they could eat after the giving into temptation has already happened since the distrust of God is already present. This is now a puzzling question which is like saying could a man deny the Truth if he wanted to? Well if he wanted to, he already has. Sorry, it makes no sense.

Now, here's still another flaw in your thinking:

If Adam and Eve did not have their own free will, why did God instruct them?

Instructions are for ignorance, therefore you are talking about an ignorant will in need of instruction. This means we are subject in our wills to knowledge and ignorance of Truth. This is why we must trust God to be righteous and righteousness is by faith not simply because we have the ability to choose a course of action.

If this is merely a battle between satan and God, and we are being used as pawns like on a chess game, well, that is a dangerous position for you to take.

I don't agree with this analogy and how you framed my position. I'm saying Adam made a mistake and also that this was due to a lack of confidence in himself.this mistake changed the very wills of men to feel things they were at the time not meant to feel, and thereby we have sensations we cannot control that lead to death even as God said. They saw they were naked and sought to cover themselves.

God specifically forbade Adam(s) from eating of that tree. If that was truly God's will, wouldn't He have prevented them from doing so, if they had no free will?

I hope you realize this is a troublesome question as I don't know what definition of freewill you are applying, there are two negatives, and the statement "if that was truly God's will" is a suggestive but qualifies nothing. It's like your saying if they had no freewill God would have prevented them from eating the fruit. Hence they have a freewill because God didn't prevent them. I would argue that this is a trick question since even if God prevented them, how would this prove they don't make choices. For instance God kicked them out of the garden where they did not will to go, and prevented them from entering. Will you now concede by such reasoning that since God prevented them and they were made subject to a lot they did not choose, men do not have a freewill? No you won't, so your question is irrelevent towards proving anything.

But as Jesus did not leave us blind concerning this I will use the parable of the prodigal son to show my position. I am saying men's moral wills are subject to ignorance and knowledge of God and this pertaining to His trustworthiness.

The prodigal son imagining there were better things outside his Fathers house left His Fathers house. His Father did not prevent him. Not because he couldn't, but because since the issue was one of trust in the Father, any attempt to stop the son would only add to the distrust. So in his wisdom he gave him his inheritance and sadly let him go. The son then took his inheritance and blew it on riotus living so that the son soon found himself wishing he could come back. For he knew hunger such as he never knew in his Father's house. So he did return with a changed attitude, hoping his father would accept him as a servant. But when he returned, he was welcomed home by his ever loving Father. So the son's will changed according to his ignorance and knowledge pertaining to his Father and so does ours. For the Father knew his son was deceived in his imagination and that is why he welcomes him home running towards him with open arms. He does not cast in his face his stupidity and show wrath as if the son knew what he was doing, for this would only demean the son. Such is his Love.
So also the choice to disobey God for man was out of being deceived in the imagination and this is self-evident because we return because we realize the truth not because we have the ability to choose.

There was no sin before the serpent deceived them, remember, so their will would be GOD's will in the way you are presenting your argument. So why did God make them eat of the fruit He forbade them? Are you then saying that satan is stronger than God? Are you saying God is capricious, or a liar?

I see what you're getting at. You are obviously misunderstanding my position. But I have not said men do not have their own will. I think I've explained it well with the prodigal son.

God walked and fellowshipped with them in the garden, proving they had no sin.

Sorry Gazzelle, but I never said they had sin when walking in the garden with God? Nor do I believe they could have chose to sin freely for scripture says it was the cunning subtlty of Satan that set the events in motion. Scripture clearly shows Satan beguiled the woman and Adam trusted the woman instead of himself.

You see, you are harboring on dangerous ground. Your arguments against the Word of God may not be this free will issue at all, but YOUR free will.


Under what will are you posting these (weak) arguments--satan's or God's? It's obvious to me (imo) that they it isn't God's because you are unable to understand what is being said to you from Scripture. So now, under your own basic platform, you are either unable to prevent your posting --being under the power of satan, or you are using your own free will to argue.

As you obviously were not informed about my position as that which is taught in the prodigal son, I will ignore all of this and look forward to your next response.