CLE Forum
CLE Website and Ministry => Wild Emails @ CLE => Topic started by: creationliberty on July 31, 2019, 06:55:55 PM
-
NICK FROM TENNESSEE:
Chris, (all-caps for emphasis)
I just read your study on Predestination VS Free Will. I'm right there with you on the whole "Churchianity" issue, and "Christian New Age" topics. I was a part of that churchy world for most of my life until about 6 years ago, when the Lord caused me to seek only His word. Anyhoo, it's a long testimony, let me get to the questions I want to ask you...
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
This part... "Him who worketh all things" is what I want to bring to our attention. And then God says...
Phil 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
No, it's correct to say "also, God says" -- what you're trying to do is continue the thought as if Eph 1:11 was followed up directly by Phil 2:13. What you're doing is attempting to discern a doctrine "here a little and there a little" (Isa 28:10), which is fine, but I have to make such notes and disclaimers with men who write me the way you are writing me. What I mean is that you have written this letter to me in contention (i.e. you didn't come here to learn from me or to discuss anything together). I haven't read the rest of your letter yet, but your spirit is fairly clear so far, even though you are not stating your intentions clearly, so I need to be cautious of you moving forward.
God works all things, including our wills, both to will and to do... of His good pleasure.
You didn't give any scripture that shows that God gives us a free will in time, but predestines us out of time? I looked in scripture, but didn't see that stated anywhere in scripture.
I'm wondering how to approach this because you didn't write me to learn anything. That's really obvious now, especially since I did give Scripture for that, but you ignored it. (i.e. It's not that you couldn't find it, but you didn't want to see it.) You're trying to justify a doctrine you believe, and really, I don't like people who beat around the bush and are not straight-forward with their intentions. I just have a hard time helping someone who thinks that putting a question mark at the end of his sentence means that he wants an answer.
Without even going to the Scripture; I'll just apply a simple reason of the Scriptures themselves. The existence of commandments in Scripture makes no sense unless we're given choice. Even the existence of reward for good works, makes no sense unless we've given a choice. I'll be frank, if you can't understand that; I don't think I can help you because, again, you didn't write me to learn anything.
The choices that he places before us "life and death", "blue t-shirt or red t-shirt" etc. are all worked by Him and for Him. We have a will, but it is NOT FREE from His will.
Then go believe whatever you want, and I hope you have a great day.
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
1 Sam 16:14 But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him.
Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?
Isaiah 63:17 O Lord, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear? Return for thy servants' sake, the tribes of thine inheritance.
Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Jeremiah 18:6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
Acts 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
We can't even love Him without Him loving us first...
1 John 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.
Scripture says that God works all things after the council of His own will, even our very own wills to will and to do. I've never seen scripture that says... "Inside time, you have a choice. Outside time, you are predestined." This idea came from somewhere, do you have scripture on this?
Yes, I do, and I presented it in the article, which means I now do not believe that you actually read and/or listened to that teaching I did, and I don't appreciate when people lie to me. (i.e. "I just read your study on Predestination VS Free Will." - That was a lie; you may have skimmed it, but you didn't read it.)
I have work to do, and I need to get back to it. Again, I hope you depart in peace, and that your family would remain in good health with all their needs met.
We have the ability to make thousands of choices a day, but they are not free. Having the ability to choose or make choices doesn't mean we have a will that is free from His.
Thanks for listening. I hope this has been beneficial for us both in some way.
Sadly, it was just a waste of my time. Again, I need to get back to work. Have a great day.
END OF EXCHANGE
The first word of his letter showed me that he had no intention of talking with me or learning anything. How could I possibly discern that from the word 'Chris'? The problem is not someone calling me "Chris," as almost everyone who knows me calls me that. However, that's not how most people write me. When someone who does not know me writes me respectfully, they write "Christopher" because that's the name attached to all my teachings. I would do the same thing on someone else's website; I would address them by the name they used. Without reading anything else, and because this guy had never contacted me before, I knew he was not going to listen to a word I had to say, and that it was a complete waste of time.
Furthermore, someone had shared this teaching somewhere in which some controversy arose because I had a group of emails sent to me all in one afternoon about this very topic. What was amazing about it is that not one of them who wrote me about that subject had actually read the article. I even had one guy openly admit it in a response to me. I'm guessing what happened is this: Someone posted this link somewhere with a generalized explanation or specific quotes from my article, they read the summary, went to the website, and immediately wrote me to complain without checking out what I taught and the Scriptures I provided. To that, I can only say one thing:
He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.
-Pro 18:13
The way I've always approached this is that if I was going to go to someone else's website or ministry and try to teach them a doctrine, I didn't just kick down the front door and demand they adhere to everything I say. That's what most people do. (While, at the same time, they call me the prideful one.) I might give them someone I wrote and just ask them if they would provide analysis of it, or I ask them a question about their beliefs on a particular subject, but these folks are just people trying to act like they have understanding when they don't, and I have one thing I'm really trying to figure out:
Why are they so hell-bent on the doctrine that mankind does not have a choice?
The only answer I've been able to come up with so far is that it justifies them to be lazy, meaning that they don't have to do any evangelism. Outside of that, I haven't yet been able to figure out their reason for hating the truth of God's Word so much, and why they push so hard to do inconvenient mental gymnastics to try and the get Bible to say something they want it to say.
-
I'm going to have to go over the Predestination VS Free Will article again. I admit I'd only listened to the Youtube version but never read the article all the way through. I also currently hold to the "no free will" position, but if Scripture shows that I'm wrong then Scripture wins that tug of war. My current understanding is that man has a will, but that will is subject to a person's nature and the influences that person encounters, and so that will isn't truly free. The choices that God offers reveal the nature of the one deciding one course over another, or whether to obey or disobey. A regenerated spirit's nature is to obey and please God, but unregenerated flesh's nature is to disobey God and please itself, so there's the warfare. An dead spirit and unregenerated flesh obviously would have no reservations against absolutely revelling in sin. Anyhow, just trying to add to the discussion. Curious of your thoughts other than what I'll read in the article.
-
I hope you'll share your thoughts after you go over it. If you do decide to go over it, I hope you'll allow me to suggest one thing:
In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
-2Ti 2:25
I would not do this with men like Nick from TN, but with you (Raymond), who I believe is brethren in Christ, and that I thus far trust that you seek the wisdom of God, I have no problem suggesting this if you'll allow it. You don't need to answer on this thread if you don't want to, but just try to define what the word 'peradventure' means in Scripture, and then once you define it, try to figure out how that can fit into the "no free will" position you mentioned.
-
Chris said:
"someone had shared this teaching somewhere in which some controversy arose because I had a group of emails sent to me all in one afternoon about this very topic."
My guess is that it was a Calvinist group based on this 'wild' email and the last one. The doctrine, tone and attitude are typical Calvinistic markers that I've seen from most people that profess this false belief system.
-
Well, that's why I didn't bother to give that guy Scripture; he didn't want to hear it. He was not there to learn or discuss. I just wanted to see if the man could be reasoned with first; that's why I tried to reason with him to explain that the very existence of commandments shows that we have free will. The existence of rebuke and correction shows that we have free will, unless someone wants to say our errors and wrongdoing came from God, which, knowing the purity of the Lord, I would call blasphemy.
That's why I'm still curious why such a ludicrous doctrine is defended so fervently. (Please forgive me for my bluntness; I have no wish to insult Raymond at all, especially before he has had a chance to examine the matter more closely--this is just my honest opinion of the "no free will" doctrine.) The only other reason I can think of is that these people have put their faith in a pastor and/or church building, and if what I'm saying is true, it exposes the fallacy of the people and system they put their faith in, and instead of looking for the truth, they lie, falsely accuse, and then puff themselves up as if they understand the verses of Scripture they're sending me.
I guess this is why I've taught before that memorization of Scripture is good, but understanding of the doctrine is far better. Anyone can quote Scripture, and anyone can quote someone else quoting Scripture; that doesn't mean they understand it.
-
"Peradventure"
Oh wow! I had never considered that. Wonderful. :)
-
"Peradventure"
Oh wow! I had never considered that. Wonderful. :)
Oh, that was short. I was hoping to hear more from you. What was your conclusion?
-
"Peradventure"
Oh wow! I had never considered that. Wonderful. :)
Oh, that was short. I was hoping to hear more from you. What was your conclusion?
Sure. I was on my way out for the day. I would like to include some of the context of the verse and word in question:
But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. [2Ti 2:23 KJV]
And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all [men], apt to teach, patient, [2Ti 2:24 KJV]
In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; [2Ti 2:25 KJV]
And [that] they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. [2Ti 2:26 KJV]
In modern English we would probably use the word 'perhaps' in place of peradventure. Or we could say per chance or by chance. Since this all came up in the discussion of Calvinism vs Free Will ... or Arminianism ... the calvinist could not bear to think there was any chance involved in Timothy's ministry to those who oppose themselves. Nor would there be in whether or not God would give them repentance. In calvinist philosophy everything is orchestrated by God. How could 'peradventure' have anything to do with one recovering themselves out of the snare of the devil. That would be one exercising his free will and even to recover THEMSELVES.
My excitement earlier was due to my never having considered this one word as being a direct challenge to Calvinism. A word we most likely skip over when reading. At least I have anyway.
-
Sorry, I read the post too fast. I thought Raymond had responded with that, and I was hoping to hear his reaction to it. I didn't realize it was from you. Don't misunderstand, I'm glad you're responding, and I liked your analysis, but I thought I was talking to Raymond. :P
-
Thats funny Chris, because I thought it was Raymond too! I am laughing so hard right now!
-
I got halfway through the article today, I'll have something for you tomorrow for sure. To be honest I only call myself Calvinist because after my conversion I came across the doctrines of grace (the 5 points) and scriptural references for them. I looked them up in their context and agreed with all 5 points, though honestly once I accepted that total depravity INCLUDED myself the rest of the points fell into place hahaha. That was also the time where I had a much greater reverence for God's sovereignty after reading Job, so the "no free will" concept seemed like a no brainer, especially in the context of Scripture that speaks of foreknowledge and predestination.
It floors me that people who call themselves Calvinists who are supposed to understand that literally nothing but the grace and mercy of God acting to regenerate them can communicate with so much pride. I mean I understand discussions can get intense, but the childishness I've read in this letter and one other really makes me think those guys aren't really born again, or best case scenario have some serious chastening coming up. It seems more like they got a hold of Calvinist doctrines and believed them, but weren't regenerated and so use them to brow-beat anyone who doesn't follow suit. Calvinist false converts if you will. So is that a bad tree/bad fruit thing? I'm thinking probably. They literally should be the most humble people on earth if they understood their lack of ability to save themselves.
That's where my understanding of the lack of free will come in, that carnal-minded man's inability to choose salvation is intimately linked to his inborn depravity, and in that state it is literally impossible for him to be saved in any way other than God changing his spiritual character (from dead to alive); in that way allow for his will also to change. I'm still chewing on the process, the sequence of events (regeneration, repentance, conversion, etc), but Chris is 100% correct in teaching that grief and sorrow over sinning against God is an essential part of salvation. No carnally-minded person can sincerely repent. Without God-given repentance there is no true humility, and without humility there is no desperate sincerity in begging for forgiveness. God only gives grace to the humble after all.
-
Haha, "That was also the time where I had a much greater reverence for God's sovereignty" makes it sound like I did then but I don't now. That was the time when I gained a much greater reverence. Still have it, though I'm sure It's nothing near what it should be.
-
Hmm... perhaps that's why I've run into so much arrogance among the Calvinist crowd? I know I'm not the only one here who has run into that as well. I hadn't really considered it until you said something because I was never a part of that crowd.
Is it that they're trying to figure out HOW someone is regenerated? Because I don't think that's something that we can answer. That's like the difference between these two questions?
-Did God make a cow?
-How did God make a cow?
Those are two very different questions, the former we can answer, and the latter we cannot.
-
Even my mother, who has been (and still is) a member of a Presbyterian church for 56 years (and went to another Presbyterian church for at least 3 years before that, even though she was raised Baptist), understands the difference between us having free will and God's foreknowledge of all things. This building has a 'Calvin Room' and a 'Knox Hall'.
She holds to a lot of other false 'churchianity' doctrines, but at least she understands this concept.
-
Apologies, busy day.
So in in 2Ti 2:25 the word "peradventure" in this context seems to mean something equivalent to "just in case", as in a hopeful uncertainty. Should God will to give them repentance, it should be to the acknowledging of the truth and not necessarily intimidation or harshness like those contentious cage-stage Calvinists might try to pull. In any case, "peradventure" in this verse speaks of Paul's uncertainty about whether God will grant repentance. It doesn't say anything to me of choice or will other than God's.
I agree that outside linear time all decisions are already made and within linear time we are making decisions on various choices as we encounter them. My question is this... just what is it that makes a person choose one thing over another?
Webster's 1828:
WILL, noun [See the Verb.]
1. That faculty of the mind by which we determine either to do or forbear an action; the faculty which is exercised in deciding, among two or more objects, which we shall embrace or pursue.
---> The will is directed or influenced by the judgment.
The understanding or reason compares different objects, which operate as motives; the judgment determines which is preferable, and the will decides which to pursue.
---> In other words, we reason with respect to the value or importance of things; we then judge which is to be preferred; and we will to take the most valuable. These are but different operations of the mind, soul, or intellectual part of man. Great disputes have existed respecting the freedom of the will will is often quite a different thing from desire.
I agree that within linear time there are a variety of choices presented, but if the will is directed by the judgement consider all the possible influences on that judgement! Going with your analogy of visiting your home for dinner... If hunger was not a strong enough influence, I would not have judged that I wanted to eat and would have been content to go without eating rather than to ask for food. If she asked if I was hungry and her question brough my attention to the fact that I was, her question would bring my nature to mind (why yes I actually AM hungry) which would influence my judgement to focus my will on taking the action of accepting a meal. But even after that, if what she prepared was repulsive to me (for example something full of cheese and I happen to be lactose intolerant) my judgement of the appeal of the food is influenced by the knowledge of its ingredients, the understanding of my lactose intolerance, and my fear of the painful and embarrassing after-effects. Regardless of how hungry I was or how good a cook your wife is or how worried I was about insulting either of you by refusing, my lactose intolerant nature would compel me to.
I hope you can understand when I say we all have a will but that will is not free. We make our own decisions, but those decisions are in response to how our nature interprets all of the incoming influences together. I know that someone who holds to free will might ask "what if I choose to do something that is normally against my nature?", but in doing that thing they would only show that their nature includes attempting to do things that would otherwise be against their nature.
The thing that sticks out foremost in my mind about the "Is Repentance Part of Salvation?" message is when you encouraged people to pray that God would grant them repentance. Man even just that request... If someone hearing that was carnally minded, their spiritually dead nature would find that request utterly ridiculous if not repulsive. They enjoy their sin, why would they ever ask to be made to feel bad about it? But someone with a spiritually regenerated nature hears; and if they believe and realize that they've never repented, they pray for repentance. Arguably the choice is available either way for both nature, but the will follows the nature and acts on what the nature determines to be most valuable.
Take the example of the lame man at the Beautiful Gate:
Acts 3:1-8
Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour. And
---> a certain man lame from his mother's womb
---> was carried,
whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple; Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple asked an alms. And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him with John, said, Look on us. And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them. Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength. And
---> he leaping up stood, and walked,
---> and entered with them into the temple,
---> walking, and leaping, and praising God.
In his lame state his nature prevented him from walking and leaping, and since he was lame from birth most likely never even considered it a possibility. God changed his nature through John. Free will could argue that he had just as much of an option to sit back down and keep begging, but predestination would say his changed nature compelled him to walk and leap and enter the temple.
Curious for your feedback :D
-
Undoubtedly false conversion is the source of Calvinist arrogance. Just like the rest of professing Christians, false converts make up the majority of them too. In their minds "being elect" puts them into an elite class (which is TOTALLY unscriptural) and if you don't agree with them, you're inferior. I run into it all the time. I've unfriended the vast majority of FB Calvinists I've run into for just that reason. Oh, and also because the totally mock the KJVO position. Just out of curiosity how many of the really arrogant Calvinists have you found to be KJVO?
Some of them try to argue the technicalities of salvation like supralapsarianism or infralapsarianism. It's ridiculous. Who cares. I mostly just try to figure out the sequence of things that brought me to conversion. It's like a smear of events across my whole life. Is that "working out my salvation"? Maybe part of it...
I'm not even sure about associating myself with Calvinists anymore. I usually just tell people "five points, five solas, KJVO" and that usually enough to get them angry at me hahaha.
-
I had no idea of what those two terms you mentioned mean; in fact, I had never heard the words before. So for everyone's benefit, I went and looked them up
Definition of supralapsarianism
: the doctrine that God decreed both election and reprobation prior to creation and then allowed the fall of man as a means of carrying out his divine purposes
Definition of infralapsarianism
: the doctrine that God foresaw and permitted the fall of man and that after the fall he then decreed election as a means of saving some of the human race
Merriam-Webster
-
Apologies, busy day.
So in in 2Ti 2:25 the word "peradventure" in this context seems to mean something equivalent to "just in case", as in a hopeful uncertainty. Should God will to give them repentance, it should be to the acknowledging of the truth and not necessarily intimidation or harshness like those contentious cage-stage Calvinists might try to pull. In any case, "peradventure" in this verse speaks of Paul's uncertainty about whether God will grant repentance. It doesn't say anything to me of choice or will other than God's.
Correct, but the question you didn't answer (or perhaps you didn't consider) was why Paul would have said "by chance" concerning God giving someone repentance. Why did he not say something like "according to His will?" Well, by chance means that we, who are stuck in time, do not know the will of God, and therefore, because we cannot know such deep things of God, nor even begin to understand the complexities of His judgments, in our own view, it appears as "chance," not knowing the outcome of such things. Therefore, outside of time, God has predestined all those who come to repentance, and inside of time, it appears to be of chance because we do not have full knowledge. Likewise, as God has predestined rewards for all who have done good works, but inside time, we are still making choices because we cannot understand His ways.
However, I was also waiting for you to shrug off the word 'peradventure' used in this passage because that's what most people would do. Now that you have said "It doesn't say anything to me of choice or will other than God's," and I figured you wouldn't take the time to go do some more Biblical research on the matter, now let's look at something a big tougher to chew on:
And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt:
-Exd 13:17
If anyone needs help understanding this, let me know.
I agree that outside linear time all decisions are already made and within linear time we are making decisions on various choices as we encounter them. My question is this... just what is it that makes a person choose one thing over another?
And that is attempting to attain unto the deep knowledge of God, whereas the Bible says we cannot attain such things, it is arrogance in ourselves to believe that we were created with the capability to understand things that complex:
O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether. Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.
-Psa 139:1-6
So, either we believe the Bible that such knowledge is far beyond us, or we don't believe the Bible, and then endlessly debate and try to search out answers within ourselves in vanity. I would say, such is the foolishness of the Calvinist. If David, one who was so highly favored of God, much more than any of us, could not attain it, on what basis should we believe that we should have such knowledge?
Webster's 1828:
WILL, noun [See the Verb.]
1. That faculty of the mind by which we determine either to do or forbear an action; the faculty which is exercised in deciding, among two or more objects, which we shall embrace or pursue.
---> The will is directed or influenced by the judgment.
The understanding or reason compares different objects, which operate as motives; the judgment determines which is preferable, and the will decides which to pursue.
---> In other words, we reason with respect to the value or importance of things; we then judge which is to be preferred; and we will to take the most valuable. These are but different operations of the mind, soul, or intellectual part of man. Great disputes have existed respecting the freedom of the will will is often quite a different thing from desire.
Again, I like Noah Webster's dictionary, but it's not my final authority.
I agree that within linear time there are a variety of choices presented, but if the will is directed by the judgement consider all the possible influences on that judgement! Going with your analogy of visiting your home for dinner... If hunger was not a strong enough influence, I would not have judged that I wanted to eat and would have been content to go without eating rather than to ask for food. If she asked if I was hungry and her question brough my attention to the fact that I was, her question would bring my nature to mind (why yes I actually AM hungry) which would influence my judgement to focus my will on taking the action of accepting a meal. But even after that, if what she prepared was repulsive to me (for example something full of cheese and I happen to be lactose intolerant) my judgement of the appeal of the food is influenced by the knowledge of its ingredients, the understanding of my lactose intolerance, and my fear of the painful and embarrassing after-effects. Regardless of how hungry I was or how good a cook your wife is or how worried I was about insulting either of you by refusing, my lactose intolerant nature would compel me to.
That might fool others, but it will not fool me because I understand what you're attempting to do. For example:
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
-John 10:1-5
Now let's suppose the scribe lifts up his hand to speak:
"Lord, what if the shepherd simply lost his keys to the barn lock? There might not be any other way to get into the barn but by climbing up that other way. Also, what if the shepherd has a cold? He might not sound like the shepherd at the time because his voice might be distorted to some degree, and in that case, the sheep would be running from the shepherd instead of going to him!"
I don't know if there is an official name for this, but it's what I like to call "hyper-analysis of an analogy," which takes a basic analogy that is meant for basic understanding of a simple topic, and someone blows it so far out of proportion, no one else could possibly understand it anymore. There's always basic analysis of an analogy, because not all analogies are correct, but hyper-analysis is always done by people looking for a way to justify themselves because if you hyper-analyze it and miss the purpose of the analogy, ANY analogy can be broken down into nonsense through "what-ifs." And this is exactly what the lawyer did to Jesus:
And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
-Luke 10:25-29
He wanted to debate the definition of neighbor so he could justify his own beliefs (and wickedness) through a grammar dictionary, rather than going to the Word of God. Whereas we typically use Webster's dictionary for clarification, while we back things up with Scripture, what you just did was try to use that dictionary as a foundation for your argument, just as the lawyer was attempting to do with Christ. (And btw, Jesus answered by giving him another parable; because seeing they see not, neither do they understand. Mat 13:13)
I hope you can understand when I say we all have a will but that will is not free. We make our own decisions, but those decisions are in response to how our nature interprets all of the incoming influences together. I know that someone who holds to free will might ask "what if I choose to do something that is normally against my nature?", but in doing that thing they would only show that their nature includes attempting to do things that would otherwise be against their nature.
What you're trying to say, but not say, is that "We have a will, but it's not really ours," because that sentence doesn't sound as reasonable. The reason you're doing this is because you do not want to believe that people have a choice, and I can guarantee there is a wicked reasoning for it. The real problem is that you believe the omniscience of God makes it impossible for Him to give us free will to make a choice. The God I serve is infinite, but He gives people free will choice, and He gives people over to their choices when their heart has become too corrupt. He has His own way of judging this that we cannot understand.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
-Romans 1:26-28
The thing that sticks out foremost in my mind about the "Is Repentance Part of Salvation?" message is when you encouraged people to pray that God would grant them repentance. Man even just that request... If someone hearing that was carnally minded, their spiritually dead nature would find that request utterly ridiculous if not repulsive. They enjoy their sin, why would they ever ask to be made to feel bad about it?
I gotta' admit, I laughed when I just read this because that's correct. And that's also the point. Are you not understanding something here? Is it that you do not believe that God can give someone repentance and they can reject it? You say these things as if I had not understood them when I gave that teaching. Of course such a thing would be repulsive to someone given over to their sin, and that's why, when given over to their sin, they will not hear the call of God in which He is not willing that any would perish, and yet, they do.
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
-2Pe 3:9
Are you telling me that you believe that God goes against His own will with these people?
Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
-Eze 33:11
Why did God not say, "Let me turn you from your evil ways?" Or rather, if He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, then why is He torturing Himself to not turn them by His own power since the people have no free will?
For many are called, but few are chosen.
-Mat 22:14
If God calls them, why are they not chosen? It's call free will choice.
What you're telling us is nonsense Raymond, something that you learned as the rudiments of your education, and my big curiosity is: Why do you so desperately hold onto nonsense? If I can discern the real reason why (and I'm looking for it), I think this conversation will end quickly.
But someone with a spiritually regenerated nature hears; and if they believe and realize that they've never repented, they pray for repentance. Arguably the choice is available either way for both nature, but the will follows the nature and acts on what the nature determines to be most valuable.
Therefore, you believe in regeneration before regeneration of the Holy Spirit. That means you do not believe Scripture.
For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
-Tts 3:3-7
We were not heirs beforehand, but were made heirs. If you do not believe that, prior to regeneration, we choose to do those wicked things, then you believe that sin is God's fault, and that's dangerous doctrine because it's blaspheme.
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
-1Co 15:21
If man does not have free will choice, then by God came death, and that's heresy.
Take the example of the lame man at the Beautiful Gate:
Acts 3:1-8
Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour. And
---> a certain man lame from his mother's womb
---> was carried,
whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple; Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple asked an alms. And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him with John, said, Look on us. And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them. Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength. And
---> he leaping up stood, and walked,
---> and entered with them into the temple,
---> walking, and leaping, and praising God.
In his lame state his nature prevented him from walking and leaping, and since he was lame from birth most likely never even considered it a possibility. God changed his nature through John. Free will could argue that he had just as much of an option to sit back down and keep begging, but predestination would say his changed nature compelled him to walk and leap and enter the temple.
Curious for your feedback :D
Well, first of all, "predestination" does not "say" anything. That's called personification, and you used it fallaciously. That's like when evolutionists say "science tells us;" that's ridiculous. It's your opinion, your belief, and your analysis, but again, you don't want to believe that because you have "no free will," right?
That man's faith in God's power healed him. That's what you do not see.
The same heard Paul speak: who stedfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith to be healed,
-Acts 14:9
He believed, which is why he attempted to stand up and walk in the first place, and that was indeed a choice. If he did not believe he would be healed, he would not have been healed. He was given a commandment, and he followed it because he already had the humility of repentance and faith in his heart. Nowhere does it say he was saved on that day; that his spirit was regenerated, but rather, it was his flesh that was healed. He went leaping about the temple in praise and thanks unto God, that others, peradventure, might also believe. He was both compelled and given a choice, both being predestined and having free will, having desire and choosing to act on it, but you don't want to believe that, and if we can discern the reason why you don't want to believe that, it will be much easier to get at the heart of this conversation.
-
James 1 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. 13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14 but every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
i.e. It's all free choice on the individual.
-
Do you believe Lucifer had free will? God knew what he would do and what he would become before He created him, but do you honestly believe God intended for that to happen?
-
Do you believe Lucifer had free will? God knew what he would do and what he would become before He created him, but do you honestly believe God intended for that to happen?
I'm not sure if this question was for me or Raymond, but the subject is an interesting one. Free choice still has to come in to play.
Romans 9 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. 10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 11 (for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 12 it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Jesus chose Judas Iscariot as one of his twelve disciples even though he knew he was going to betray him. Poor Judas? Nah, not really. Judas chose? Like Pharoah, Judas had already made a lot of bad choices before God decided to use him as a part of His plan.
John 12 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. 4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, 5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? 6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.
Interesting topic as it sort of fits in with my work. I get asked to make things which I know will never work, but I have to go ahead and make them anyway. Didn't work? :P Wow, who ever thought that would happen? ::)
For God it is His intention that all should come to a knowledge of the truth and be saved but He knew that wasn't what was going to happen. I would have to put Lucifer in the same category.
Matthew 25 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels
It is interesting that the statement was made that the everlasting fire was prepared for the devil and his angels and it didn't mention that it was for unredeemed man as well.
-
Actually, the question was for Raymond, but thanks for your input, Kevin. You always have some very interesting insight.
That now raises a question; was hell created at the same time as the rest of creation knowing that there would be a need for it or did God wait until Lucifer rebelled? (I don't want to derail this thread from the topic of whether free will exists or not but that was just something that came to me as I was reading your post.)
-
I'm working in a response for Chris ATM but I wanted to chime in on this, since I chew on it a lot.
Just like with mankind, I believe Lucifer had a will of his own, but how that will was exercised into action is dependant on his nature and how he is affected by various influences. Did Lucifer fall before or after the creation of the earth? Please correct me if I'm wrong but I've found no indication in scripture of his fall until afterward.
*[[Eze 28:13]] KJV*
---> Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God;
every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
---> Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so:
---> thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
---> Thou wast perfect in thy ways
---> from the day that thou wast created,
---> till iniquity was found in thee.
God had to have created Lucifer in a perfect state, but obviously also had to have allowed for Lucifer's capacity to sin, otherwise his fall would have been impossible. So how does someone in a sinless state sin when they have no sin nature (preference to sin)?
-
God had to have created Lucifer in a perfect state, but obviously also had to have allowed for Lucifer's capacity to sin, otherwise his fall would have been impossible. So how does someone in a sinless state sin when they have no sin nature (preference to sin)?
Quite easy really. Not following instructions. God's creations are not automatons but rather He gave them free will. God had every right to create the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and have it present as a death trap but it should never have been a problem because when you are told not to touch something then you don't touch it.
Genesis 2 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
-
That doesn't really answer my question about Lucifer though... If he was perfect and sinless, what would cause him to sin if he had no sin nature?
-
???
All you're doing is shifting the example from men to angels. You're still talking about created beings. The question "What would cause them to sin if he had no sin nature" is a loaded question. It assumes that created beings cannot sin unless God compels them to do so (i.e. you refuse to believe God can create beings with the ability to choose), and it also assumes the word 'perfect' means they cannot make a choice. I would expect anyone here to answer a loaded question, and I would ask that you be more aware of what you're asking.
Again, when you delete choice from your worldview, which you have done, you can't make sense of anything, including this conversation. It would literally mean that everything in this conversation is directly God's guidance, which it's really Him speaking and not us, and that whichever of us is in error, that God is also responsible for that error and/or deception because He is guiding it. That's the logic. The reason I'm taking this very seriously is because this conversation really comes down to two different Gods we're talking about (and one of them is false), and it will become more apparent to everyone if the conversation continues.
-
Exodus 20:11 for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Colossians 1:16 for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
This tells me that Lucifer, along with all the other angels (all things that are in heaven, along with heaven itself), was created during the six days of creation week.
As to how Lucifer, who was not created with a sin nature could sin, you could just as easily ask how Adam and Eve, who were also created perfect and sinless with no sin nature could sin.
Lucifer's sin was pride; he wanted to be in the place of God instead of being content with all he had been given and this was exactly the tactic he used on Eve. He told her that God was holding out on her.
Exodus 3:5 for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
He was also jealous that Man had been given dominion over the earth instead of him, and he effectively gained that dominion when Eve listened to him rather than to God and Adam followed suit.
As Chris has stated many times, the law would have been totally unnecessary unless we had been given the will to either obey or disobey. Adam and Eve only had ONE law; don't eat from this particular tree. Free will cannot be exercised unless boundaries are placed upon it and people can choose whether they want to respect or reject those boundaries.
What you're trying to do, Raymond, is to remove any personal responsibility for sin and place all the blame on God, and that's not going to fly.
-
???
All you're doing is shifting the example from men to angels. You're still talking about created beings. The question "What would cause them to sin if he had no sin nature" is a loaded question. It assumes that created beings cannot sin unless God compels them to do so (i.e. you refuse to believe God can create beings with the ability to choose), and it also assumes the word 'perfect' means they cannot make a choice. I would expect anyone here to answer a loaded question, and I would ask that you be more aware of what you're asking.
Again, when you delete choice from your worldview, which you have done, you can't make sense of anything, including this conversation. It would literally mean that everything in this conversation is directly God's guidance, which it's really Him speaking and not us, and that whichever of us is in error, that God is also responsible for that error and/or deception because He is guiding it. That's the logic. The reason I'm taking this very seriously is because this conversation really comes down to two different Gods we're talking about (and one of them is false), and it will become more apparent to everyone if the conversation continues.
I'm glad that you both took the chance to respond to this Chris and Jeanne. I have just finished work for the day and unless someone else had written anything then I was just going to leave it as a pointless discussion for the same reason you gave that the example had just been shifted from men to angels and that can then only have the end logic that God is a sinner.
-
= The question "What would cause them to sin if he had no sin nature" is a loaded question. It assumes that created beings cannot sin unless God compels them to do so (i.e. you refuse to believe God can create beings with the ability to choose), and it also assumes the word 'perfect' means they cannot make a choice. I would expect anyone here to answer a loaded question, and I would ask that you be more aware of what you're asking.
You're assuming I believe God's direct action is the only thing that compels any action. By perfect I don't mean 'without the capacity to sin', I said that already. I'm using the word perfect that's in scripture. Get its meaning from the context.
If man does have free will choice, and God knows the future, then God intentionally gave it to him knowing beforehand that he would use it to sin and bring death into the world. How is that not 'by God came death" and heresy?
-
= Again, when you delete choice from your worldview, which you have done, you can't make sense of anything, including this conversation.
Entirely incorrect. I can make far more sense of things now than I could trying to hammer out how synergism explains things.
= It would literally mean that everything in this conversation is directly God's guidance, which it's really Him speaking and not us, and that whichever of us is in error, that God is also responsible for that error and/or deception because He is guiding it.
He ordains the conversation, but is not the source of the errors. We're the source of any errors because of our imperfect nature. You keep misrepresenting the relationship between nature and will, but I'm used to that by now.
= That's the logic. The reason I'm taking this very seriously is because this conversation really comes down to two different Gods we're talking about (and one of them is false), and it will become more apparent to everyone if the conversation continues.
Absolutely correct that we are talking about two different Gods. One is sovereign over everything and the other bows to man's will.
-
= What you're trying to do, Raymond, is to remove any personal responsibility for sin and place all the blame on God, and that's not going to fly.
Not at all. Because I have a personal will, I am responsible for my actions. My nature dictates how I exercise that will in any given situation.
-
And that sounds exactly like those who try to justify their sin by saying 'God made me this way.'
-
Where do you find any justification for sin? I just said I'm responsible for all my actions. Me. I am. The one that performs them.
-
You're assuming I believe God's direct action is the only thing that compels any action. By perfect I don't mean 'without the capacity to sin', I said that already. I'm using the word perfect that's in scripture. Get its meaning from the context.
1. You didn't define the word 'perfect' for us, as you originally claimed that you wanted to define words used, you just pushed it away.
2. You said "You're assuming I believe God's direct action is the only thing that compels any actions," and didn't bother explaining what you meant. (i.e. hiding information) Shortly, I will explain this in more detail, and normally, I would not even respond to this laziness from you, but I do so for the sake of everyone else reading so they can see your error.
After this comment you just made, I can tell there's a serious problem within you (i.e. sinful one) because that kind of thing typically comes out of the mouth of a scoffer who is hiding his true beliefs. I'm going to try to explain this for a final time, and then I've got other work to do because I can't talk to someone who can't be reasoned with, skirts answers, and dodges questions, which is what you've been doing, and I believe you are knowledgeable enough to know that you've been doing it; that's why I'm being firm here.
There are only three entities that control the actions of mankind: God, devils, or man. The reason you tried to shift things from men to angels is because you don't have an answer for the Scripture I gave you:
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
-1Co 15:21
You knew you could not refute this, and therefore, you are trying to find a way to hold on to your heresy. The very fact that you're making excuses is showing that there is something sinful you're trying to hold on to, and I haven't yet been able to figure out specifically what it is; I only have a few theories. So since I DO NOT like to assume, let me answer your accusations of assumption.
1. If God controls the actions of man, then by God came sin and death, and man had nothing to do with it. It is a contradiction to say that God compelled us to sin and then brought death upon us of His own will, because if that's true, the entire Bible is a lie. I know you don't believe that God sins on behalf of everyone else, which is why you're dodging that subject.
2. If devils control the actions of men, then by devils came sin and death, and it really isn't mankind's fault in the first place. You can blame it on devils if you want, but again, it's heresy:
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
-Rom 5:12
Sin came by man, and death came by man. You either believe that, or you don't, and that belief is your personal choice. As God did with the Jews, He puts before us life or death, blessings or curses, and we must choose.
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
-Deut 30:19
(As a side note, if you believe it is devils, then you also believe it is God, since you believe that God controls the actions of devils as well.)
3. If man controls the actions of men, then men are at fault for sin, they have a choice in the matter, and because they have a choice, they have to take responsibility. This is why the Savior means so much to us, is because God has to come in and fix what we cannot fix for ourselves.
Raymond, read carefully: If you don't believe option #3, then not only do you not believe Scripture, but also, repentance would have to be a lie. There is no reason why a man should be sorry for something he didn't do, and I already know that you know that you don't believe that you're not solely responsible for your own choices, as you stated in your introduction post:
"Ever since then I've been in repentance, unable to justify my sin, only able to grieve over it while looking forward to the time when my flesh won't cause me to sin anymore. I still can't wrap my head around why God would want me, but I'm so thankful that He loves me enough to put up with me and chasten me when I needed it."
That contradicts everything you told us in this thread. If you believed everything you were telling us in this thread, then the following should have been what you said:
"Ever since then God put me in a state of repentance, unable to justify the devil's sin within me, only God making me grieve over it while also making me look forward to the time when devils won't cause me to sin anymore. God has not given me enough understanding to wrap my head around why He would want me, but God has also created in me thankfulness that He loves me enough to put up with the devils and chasten them when they needed it."
This is one of the many reasons we have people do an introduction post, so when it comes down to a doctrinal discussion, we can check and see if they're being consistent with us. So it's time to put away the false doctrines you learned when you turned to "Creflo Dollar, Andrew Wommack, Joseph Prince, etc," and turn to the Living God in His Word.
If man does have free will choice, and God knows the future, then God intentionally gave it to him knowing beforehand that he would use it to sin and bring death into the world. How is that not 'by God came death" and heresy?
You don't have children, do you? I hope not, because if you do, and you haven't figured this out, then you don't understand the very basic concept of love. This is something I think you should ask the parents here, and I encourage them to answer it for you if they choose.
If a parent did not put in a child's hands something dangerous when the time comes that they are ready for it, then a child would never learn anything. Once a child is old enough, if we only ever allowed them to use plastic toy knifes for their safety, they would never learn to cook. If we only allowed them to test miniature toy cars, they would never learn to drive. Putting control in the hands of a child always comes with risk, but a loving parent does it anyway, watching closely from the sidelines, and when the child messes up, suffering the consequences of his own foolishness, the parents discipline their beloved children, and show them mercy by being there to help make things right again.
Love requires free will and choice; there is no love without it.
-
Chris is right, on all counts. He's been given wisdom, and he chooses to be kind, taking the time and helping each of us to learn more about our Almighty Father in Heaven. Chris' examples are beautifully and truthfully spoken; and his last reply, regarding the love God has for His children, sums everything up, simply.
Of my three sons, only one follows God. The oldest two have chosen to not follow God. Every day I pray for them, with tears in my eyes and great sadness in my heart. The three of them were taught about our Father in Heaven, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Each of my sons received the same, unconditional love. But, they each made different choices.
Joshua 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
Job 15:5 For thy mouth uttereth thine iniquity, and thou choosest the tongue of the crafty.
Job 34:4 Let us choose to us judgment: let us know among ourselves what is good.
Job 34:33 Should it be according to thy mind? he will recompense it, whether thou refuse, or whether thou choose; and not I:
therefore speak what thou knowest.
Proverbs 1:29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:
Proverbs 3:31 Envy thou not the oppressor, and choose none of his ways.
Isaiah 7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
Isaiah 56:4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take
hold of my covenant;
Isaiah 65:12 Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not
answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not.
We have been given free will; we have choices.
-
Raymond is smart enough that he could keyword search the word 'choose' and find all the Scriptures talking about it too. That's not going to help him. But I do want to emphasize that the fact God knew what would happen, but allowed us the free will to choose anyway, only demonstrates His great patience and lovingkindness, especially since He has all the power to force us to do His will like robots. This is the same thing Jesus demonstrated; having the power to take control of the entire world, but refraining from using that power for the sake of everyone, that all might come to repentance and believe on Him.
By that reasoning, if God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, then if you believe mankind has no free will and choice, then you must believe the Bible is a lie, otherwise, everyone would repent.
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
-2Pe 3:9
In the end, sin is the reason people hold on to false doctrine, and there are only two reasons I can find that people hold on to that doctrine. It's either that they're defending a preacher (i.e. loving tradition more than God), or they're lazy because it gives them an excuse to do nothing. (Or it could be a combination of both; hard to tell.) I haven't been able to find any other reason for it yet.
-
I was careful to not write in a manner that Raymond would find offensive and if it were me I don't think I would find Jeanne's posting offensive either. I hope Raymond does come back.
Alright, it's been about two weeks, so now we can say he's probably gone. He started making some one-liner comments like he had a chip on his shoulder before he left, and that's a pattern we've seen here many times before. Again, this is why we require most people to come here and discuss things with us before they join our church; not to say that Raymond was joining us because that was never brought up, but I'm saying that the people we often (at first) think are with us, turn out to be not with us after a bit of conversation.
What you're trying to do, Raymond, is to remove any personal responsibility for sin and place all the blame on God, and that's not going to fly.
Not at all. Because I have a personal will, I am responsible for my actions. My nature dictates how I exercise that will in any given situation.
That was a total cop-out and he should be ashamed of himself. That's why I started getting firm with him; when people start deceiving others, I don't have a lot of patience left. That was a sleight-of-hand trick that he thought would fool others, and not only was it a little surprising (because I didn't expect to see him do that), I don't appreciate that garbage, especially here where there are other Christians around the world that read this forum.
Raymond knows that by "free will," we mean that we have the ability to make a choice that is apart from God's will. That's why I demonstrated to Raymond, from the Scripture, that God is not willing that any man should perish, but wills that all men come to repentance in 2 Peter 3:9, and thus, we have a free will to choose that which is not God's will. That's not hypothetical, that's simple, and can be proven Scripturally.
Instead of saying he has a "free will," so to avoid any agreement with us, while trying to appear reasonable on the outside (as if he does not believe in heresy), he says he has "personal will," which, as far as I'm aware, he did not define. Again, he says on the surface that he is "responsible for his actions," but while at the same time saying that it's not really his responsibility because it's the fault of "his nature." The reason I pointed out to him that either God was responsible for his sin nature (which is heresy) or devils were responsible (which is an indirect version of the same heresy), is because the only option left is that we make our own choices, but he desperately wants to avoid that, as he demonstrated earlier when he quoted Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary on the word 'will'.
Webster's 1828:
WILL, noun [See the Verb.]
1. That faculty of the mind by which we determine either to do or forbear an action; the faculty which is exercised in deciding, among two or more objects, which we shall embrace or pursue.
---> The will is directed or influenced by the judgment.
The understanding or reason compares different objects, which operate as motives; the judgment determines which is preferable, and the will decides which to pursue.
---> In other words, we reason with respect to the value or importance of things; we then judge which is to be preferred; and we will to take the most valuable. These are but different operations of the mind, soul, or intellectual part of man. Great disputes have existed respecting the freedom of the will will is often quite a different thing from desire.
Here's where he gets really deceptive. I wanted to cover more on this earlier, but I was waiting a couple of weeks to see if he would give a response, or at least repent of his heresy. He obviously did not, decided to depart, and worse still, in my opinion, he never gave his reasoning for why he was holding so tightly onto his heresy, which is the core of what I want to know.
Raymond highlighted the part about the will being directed or influenced by the judgment, and then said: "If the will is directed by the judgement consider all the possible influences on that judgement!" That has NOTHING to do with the argument that's being made to Raymond. This is a red herring, and you can tell because if you keep reading Webster's explanation in the next sentence, he says:
"the judgment determines which is preferable, and the will decides which to pursue"
So the either we decided to disobey God, or God decided and disobeyed Himself on our behalf. There's more under the word 'will' in that dictionary, so I "decided" (if you will, or perhaps, under Raymond's belief, by the will and power of God to disprove Raymond's false beliefs) to keep reading to point #2:
2. Choice; determination
Webster starts with a full explanation, and then simplifies it in point 2 that it is a choice, but isn't it interesting that Raymond just skipped over that? In fact, the very first thing Webster suggests to do is go to the VERB portion of the word 'will'. Okay, let's go down to that and see what he says:
To determine; to decide in the mind that something shall be done or forborne
Raymond was simply trying to avoid saying we have choice or make decisions, and yet, the very source he was using agrees with the doctrine I'm teaching.
The final deception of Raymond (both deceiving us and himself) is found in his first response on this thread:
The choices that God offers reveal the nature of the one deciding one course over another, or whether to obey or disobey. A regenerated spirit's nature is to obey and please God, but unregenerated flesh's nature is to disobey God and please itself, so there's the warfare. An dead spirit and unregenerated flesh obviously would have no reservations against absolutely revelling in sin.
choice (n): the act of choosing; the voluntary act of selecting or separating from two or more things that which is preferred; or the determination of the mind in preferring one thing to another; the power of choosing, option
Raymond says that a man who is unregenerated with choose the evil.
Raymond says that a man who is regenerated will choose the good.
Raymond says that both are the nature of man, and that the choices God offers them (which means Raymond DOES believe in choice), reveals their nature. The problem with all this is that God CHANGES the nature of a man upon regeneration, and what Raymond is skipping over is how/why that happens.
And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
-Eph 2:1-3
I believe this is where the disagreement lies: I believe that God can bring the Holy Spirit to a man to give him understanding of his sin, but a man has the power of choice, which liberty God gives to all men, and men can REJECT the Holy Spirit of God. (This has to do with a man seeing his sin and making a choice, which Paul covers in Romans 7, SEE HERE: http://creationliberty.com/articles/bookromans02.php#7 (http://creationliberty.com/articles/bookromans02.php#7)) This is why the only unforgivable sin in the Bible is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit of God because when a man accuses the Holy Spirit, the grace and healing, of being of the devil, claiming that the Spirit of God is wicked or evil, there is no hope of his salvation.
Raymond is holding on to the belief that a man has no choice in the matter if the Holy Spirit of God comes to a man. That's simply ignorance, and likely a heresy he's hanging onto for "personal will" reasons he will not disclose. A man cannot choose to do the good without the Holy Spirit of God, nor can a man call Jesus "Lord" (not in the generic sense, by which many call Jesus "Lord" under false pretenses [Mat 7:21-23 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-7-21_7-23/)], but in the sense of true faith in the heart) without the Holy Spirit of God. However, a man can reject the Holy Spirit of God, which God gives men free will to do, otherwise, there is no reason for commandments, no reason for judgment, no reason for evangelism, no reason for study, and definitely no reason to argue about this doctrine.
So Raymond did say that he agreed with me that we're both worshiping two different gods. His is a god of heresy that contradicts himself, and we worship and serve the Perfect Living God who was kind enough to not make us into robots, knowing that true love is only found in liberty and choice, choosing us first, and then allowing us the choice to choose Him back.
Personally, I believe the reason men like Raymond hold on to these false doctrines is to justify laziness. After all, if everything is by nature, and there is no free will in man, then what's the point in preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ to others? If he will be honest, there is no purpose in it at that point.
If any of you want to learn more about this, Paul explains more about it in Romans 9. I have notes walking through those verses in the following link if you want to take a look:
http://creationliberty.com/articles/bookromans02.php#9 (http://creationliberty.com/articles/bookromans02.php#9)