SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Free will

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Quote:
which one does what, we don't know
If you do know & could tell me with hard, scriptural evidence, then please do,

At least their natures Balthasar believes there is scriptural evidence for. I'm only going on what he's said and I didn't see anything unscriptural about it but I will examine this further of course to know for sure.
Quote:
but if not, then don't make a distinction between the soul & spirit of man.

Is that logical? Even if we never knew the separate natures, functions, etc. of man's spirit and soul the distinction has already been made in the bible not in my imagination.

 2008/11/18 20:42
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:
benjoseph wrote:
Quote:
but if not, then don't make a distinction between the soul & spirit of man.

Is that logical? Even if we never knew the separate natures, functions, etc. of man's spirit and soul the distinction has already been made in the bible not in my imagination.

What I meant was, if or when you use one to make a point, just know it could also be the other.
Example:
My soul is grieved.
this couild also mean:
My spirit is grieved.
So it is with:
My heart is grieved.

You see, wich is the correct way to say it?
When some one is grieved, what part of man is it that is grieved?

Another example:
Quote:
b: the soul had become wounded, lost, undiscerning.
L: Not wounded, but rebellious, disobedient, blind, lost, undiscerning...ect...

b: The will of the soul healed by faith is free.
L: Not healed, but shown how not to follow the lusts of the flesh.

b: Now a man's wounded soul can be healed and live according to the power of God's Word.
L: Not wounded soul, but rebellious, disobedient soul can submit to HIM.

b: The knowledge of good was obscured and lost in man's sinfulness.
L: The knowledge of good is obscured because they do not know God to show them what is good. Not because of sinfulness.

In all this, you could also say:
b: the spirit had become wounded, lost, undiscerning.

b: The will of the spirit healed by faith is free.

b: Now a man's wounded spirit can be healed and live according to the power of God's Word.

Why do you think it is the souls and not the spirit?

I think I will start a new thread on this, to get other's oppinions.

Please respond to this on that thread and let's get on with this conversation.
What else were you wanting to imput on this thread?

 2008/11/18 22:29Profile









 Re:

Ok, I'm studying the spirit and soul still. Like I said, this is new to me.
I want to understand where you're coming from. I don't know why we seem to disagree and if I can understand what you think then it would probably become apparent and hopefully we can agree with the scripture and each other. Do you want the same thing? (Also, hopefully Balthasar was/is also in agreement with the scripture and not a false teacher. If he is I would go back and delete out the untrue parts from what I quoted by him if not the whole thing.)

So, sinful flesh:

Quote:
The flesh is not "sinful" in & of it's self, but, it's what we choose to do with our flesh that makes it sinful.

If so then how? How do you think a choice makes non-sentient dirt sinful? (eg. Is a gun sinful if used for evil?)
Quote:
One must know that jesus had the exact kind of flesh we have now. Romans 8:3, Phil 2:7-8

Do you think the word "likeness" implies that he [b]looked like[/b] someone who chooses to sin but he [b]didn't choose[/b] sin?

 2008/11/18 23:01
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:
benjoseph wrote:
So, sinful flesh:
Quote:
The flesh is not "sinful" in & of it's self, but, it's what we choose to do with our flesh that makes it sinful.

If so then how? How do you think a choice makes non-sentient dirt sinful? (eg. Is a gun sinful if used for evil?)

The body (flesh) is very good, it serves the purpose for which it was created for.
It is, was, and always will be weak.
God called it good & he never retracted it.
As I said before, the flesh was never immortal, it would have died eventually if never ate from the Tree of Life.

The flesh was never meant to be used as a standard of judgment as Adam & Eve did when lusted for the tree.
The flesh is incapable of making any discrimination, between good and bad.
Our soul/spirit/heart is capable & must make the discrimination between the good and bad.

A gun can not give/receive pleasure, therefore, it can not be sinful.
However, the soul/spirit/heart that walks after the flesh will receive pleasure in using a gun imoraly.
The flesh is amoral, it gives pleasure to our soul/spirit/heart morally & immorally, it makes no difference.
The flesh sinful is when our soul/spirit/heart uses immoral ways of the flesh to give ourselves pleasure.

One's soul/spirit/heart may receive pleasure immorally from being perverted because it does not have eternal life.

But, just because our soul/spirit/heart may receive pleasure immorally does not make it sinful in & of it's self.
So it is with our flesh, it is what we [b]use[/b] the flesh for that makes it "sinful"
It is what we (soul/spirit/heart) [b]allow[/b], that is what makes us sinnful.
[b]Gal 5:17[/b] [color=990000]For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that you cannot do the things that you would.[/color]
Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I keep a mindset of the flesh, living after the flesh, I have chosen to be sold into slavery to my own unlawful effections.

I hope I'm not confusing you.
Quote:
Quote:
One must know that Jesus had the exact kind of flesh we have now. Romans 8:3, Phil 2:7-8

Do you think the word "likeness" implies that he [b]looked like[/b] someone who chooses to sin but he [b]didn't choose[/b] sin?

The word "likeness" implies that Jesus [b]was as[/b] someone who could sin but he [b]chose not[/b] to sin?
Jesus chose not to sin with the flesh we all have.
Furthermore, the reason that Jesus never sinned is not because He is God, but because He loved His Father, for that is how we avoid sin.

 2008/11/19 12:05Profile









 Re:

ok,
I'm trying to understand.

Here's what I think you think:
flesh created good
flesh created weak
flesh created dependent on the tree of life
flesh created non-sentient
flesh created amoral

Man can choose to use his flesh for good or bad.
This makes it "sinful" in a sense. The sense being that the flesh itself is not responsible for the choice but was the performer of man's choice and the recipient of pleasure which man chose to follow instead of God? Am I narrowing it down a little better here?

You deny that any negative result of Adam's transgression was passed on, inborn, inherited, etc.

So you think Adam's descendants are capable of not sinning from birth?

 2008/11/19 13:13









 Re:

Quote:
You deny that any negative result of Adam's transgression was passed on, inborn, inherited, etc.


correction...i think.
You acknowledge that physical death for all men has resulted from Adam's sin because he didn't regard the tree of life that he could have freely eaten of?

Is this your view below?

Before Adam's sin:
life
free choice
knowledge of God

After Adam's sin and until restoration:
death
free choice?
knowledge of God?

Since restoration:
life
free choice
knowledge of God

 2008/11/19 17:06
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:
benjoseph wrote:
ok,
I'm trying to understand.

Here's what I think you think:
flesh created good
flesh created weak
flesh created dependent on the tree of life
flesh created non-sentient
flesh created amoral

Man can choose to use his flesh for good or bad.
This makes it "sinful" in a sense. The sense being that the flesh itself is not responsible for the choice but was the performer of man's choice and the recipient of pleasure which man chose to follow instead of God? Am I narrowing it down a little better here?

You deny that any negative result of Adam's transgression was passed on, inborn, inherited, etc.

So you think Adam's descendants are capable of not sinning from birth?

by jove, I think he's got it.
Very good.
Quote:
correction...i think.
You acknowledge that physical death for all men has resulted from Adam's sin because he didn't regard the tree of life that he could have freely eaten of?

You coverd that with:
"flesh created dependent on the tree of life"

Quote:
Is this your view below?

Before Adam's sin:
life
free choice
knowledge of God

After Adam's sin and until restoration:
death
free choice?
knowledge of God?

Since restoration:
life
free choice
knowledge of God

Yep, But, to be cleare, make the distinction that:
Before Adam's sin:
spiritual life and physical life
free choice
knowledge of God

After Adam's sin and until restoration:
spiritual & physical death
free choice?
knowledge of God?

Since restoration:
spiritual life and physical death
free choice
knowledge of God

The only diference is in the life & death row.

Thank you for paying attention and understanding.

I'd like to know what you disagree with and what you think is the case, and we could work things out from Scripture and come to a conclusion of what is true out of both our thoughts.

 2008/11/19 17:29Profile









 Re:

...the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate...Where is the philosopher of this age?

Logic, I'm stumped. I've been thinking about the cross, about why Jesus died. All the answers are in him regardless of whether you or I have them. I hope we both end up with them, that is, with Him. I've been a really bad sinner. Here are some verses I've been looking at. I also was reading some quotes on the wiki page about Pelagianism (which is a new term to me) that seemed interesting - some said that inherited sin is a way of blaming nature (or God maybe?) for our actual sins. I've learned a lot about repentance from reading men who believed in sinful flesh but I'll go back and see if they were actually saying what I thought they were saying. Anyway, I'll wait to hear from you at this point because this is knew to me. Maybe you would be willing to offer more explanation? Logic, when I 'googled you' I also had suspicion in my heart and I hypocritically omitted that from my apology, it being the real reason I need your forgiveness.

Here are the scriptures I was thinking about:

...God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe...we preach Christ crucified

we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

I am the Truth

the Truth will set you free

...he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil—and [b]free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death[/b]...and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.

...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

...Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Any thoughts or explanations?

Thanks,
Ben

 2008/11/20 0:05
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:
benjoseph wrote:
...the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate...Where is the philosopher of this age?

Logic, I'm stumped. I've been thinking about the cross, about why Jesus died. All the answers are in him regardless of whether you or I have them. I hope we both end up with them, that is, with Him. I've been a really bad sinner. Here are some verses I've been looking at. I also was reading some quotes on the wiki page about Pelagianism (which is a new term to me) that seemed interesting

Here are some quotes from Pelagius:
“Those who are unwilling to correct their own way of life appear to want to correct nature itself instead.” Pelagius

“And lest, on the other hand, it should be thought to be nature's fault that some have been unrighteous, I shall use the evidence of the scripture, which everywhere lay upon sinners the heavy weight of the charge of having used their own will and do not excuse them for having acted only under constraint of nature.” Pelagius

“Obedience [and disobedience] results from a decision of the mind, not the substance of the body.” Pelagius

“In the manner of good-for-nothing and haughty servants, we cry out against the face of God and say, ‘It is hard, it is difficult, we cannot do it, we are but men, we are encompassed by frail flesh!’ [The argument of the Gnostics] What blind madness! What unholy foolhardiness! We accuse God of a twofold lack of knowledge, so that he appears not to know what he has done, and not to know what he has commanded; as if, forgetful of the human frailty of which he is himself the author, he has imposed on man commands which he cannot bear. And, at the same time, oh horror!, we ascribe iniquity to the righteous and cruelty to the holy, while complaining, first, that he has commanded something impossible, secondly, that man is to be d**ned by him for doing things which he was unable to avoid, so that God – and this is something which even to suspect is sacrilege – seems to have sought not so much our salvation as our punishment!” Pelagius

“Yet we do not defend the good of nature to such an extent that we claim that it cannot do evil, since we undoubtedly declare also that it is capable of good and evil; we merely try to protect it from an unjust charge, so that we may not seem to be forced to do evil through a fault of our nature, when, in fact, we do neither good nor evil without the exercise of our will and always have the freedom to do one of the two, being always able to do either” Pelagius

“Nothing impossible has been commanded by the God of justice and majesty . . . Why do we indulge in pointless evasions, advancing the frailty of our own nature as an objection to the one who commands us? No one knows better the true measure of our strength than he who has given it to us nor does anyone understand better how much we are able to do than he who has given us this very capacity of ours to be able; nor has he who is just wished to command anything impossible or he who is good intended to condemn a man for doing what he could not avoid doing.” Pelagius

“Whenever I have to speak on the subject of moral instruction and conduct of a holy life, it is my practice first to demonstrate the power and quality of human nature and to show what it is capable of achieving, and then to go on to encourage the mind of my listener to consider the idea of different kinds of virtues, in case it may be of little or no profit to him to be summoned to pursue ends which he has perhaps assumed hitherto to be beyond his reach; for we can never end upon the path of virtue unless we have hope as our guide and compassion . . . any good of which human nature is capable has to be revealed, since what is shown to be practicable must be put into practice.” Pelagius

“It was because God wished to bestow on the rational creature the gift of doing good of his own free will and the capacity to exercise free choice, by implanting in man the possibility of choosing either alternative . . . he could do either quite naturally and then bend his will in the other direction too. He could not claim to possess the good of his own volition, unless he was the kind of creature that could also have possessed evil. Our most excellent Creator wished us to be able to do either but actually to do only one, that is, good, which he also commanded, giving us the capacity to do evil only so that we might do His will by exercising our own. That being so, this very capacity to do evil is also good - good, I say, because it makes the good part better by making it voluntary and independent, not bound by necessity but free to decide for itself” Pelagius

“If men are thus [sinners] because they cannot be different, they are not to blame.” And “Sins ought not to be visited with even the smallest punishment, provided they cannot be avoided.” Pelagius

Pelagius said that sinners, “abuse the liberty granted to them” while the righteous are “rightly using freewill.”

“Grace indeed freely discharges sins, but with the consent and choice of the believer” Pelagius

I have studied the teachings and writings of Pelagius extensively and have yet to find anything heretical in them.

Quote:
some said that inherited sin is a way of blaming nature (or God maybe?) for our actual sins.

Yes, have a so called "sin nature" would be God's own fault, for who else is in charge of creating ones natures?
Furthermore, if sin was natural, it wouldn't be wrong, for how is doing that which is natural wrong?
There is a whole lot more to this, but I will have it for another time.

Quote:
I've learned a lot about repentance from reading men who believed in sinful flesh but I'll go back and see if they were actually saying what I thought they were saying.

Make sure you see a "red flag" in your soul/spirit/heart when you hear or read about "sin nature", but one is usually safe when reading or hearing about "sinful flesh"
However, remember that the flesh is never the cause of sin, but your choice to give in to the sin is the cause.
Here is a verse that has some relevence:
[b]James 1:4[/b] [color=990000]Now each one is undergoing trial when he is drawn away and lured by his own desire.[/color]
IOW,
But each one is enticed by his own longings/desires, (this is not bad, until the enticing is to sin.) being drawn away (from the right path or way from Christ) by being seduced with them (by that [b]unlawful[/b] things which entices)

(this "being drawn away & seduced" is actually being tempted to go away, not actually leaving yet.)
Then, when longing/desire is conceived (taken hold of the thing desired for selfish reasons without any regard for anyone else), it brings forth sin, and that to death.

Quote:
Anyway, I'll wait to hear from you at this point because this is new to me. Maybe you would be willing to offer more explanation?

Here is a sight that has helped me greatly.
Many like minded men, who are very good at helping one understand the points at hand.
[url=http://openairoutreach.proboards52.com/index.cgi?board=doctrinaldiscussion]Click here[/url]

Quote:
Logic, when I 'googled you' I also had suspicion in my heart and I hypocritically omitted that from my apology, it being the real reason I need your forgiveness.

You made me laugh, thanx.

I see your intention as only noble.
It is good to suspect until given freedom to respect.

I respect your integrity and your discernment.

If you want to google me more effectively, search for these names.
Darin Wayne Edgington
Diolectic (another name K go by)

Try putting " " around my name and try doing it without my middle name.

I think you'll get more results with "diolectic"
The name is actually a miss-spelling of Dialectic.

However, be awere that somethings that you faind I have said may be quite old. I have grown, learned and changed that which I used to belived from study and recieving a better understanding.
Therfore, if you come acrossed anything older that a year old, I would let you know that I may have a slight diferent understanding of what was said then.

Quote:
...Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Here is how I read it, which is closer to the thought and intent of the writer:
Looking to the Prince who leads us in our walk to completion and who is the very One who will complete our salvation by the glorification of our bodies. who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

 2008/11/20 12:05Profile
Llewellyn
Member



Joined: 2005/8/5
Posts: 33
Windhoek, Namibia

 Re: Free Will

I posted this before on another thread, yet it seems good to state it again if by any means to invoke some to a wholesome meditation.

Quote:
The one thing that could be said in understanding the balance of God’s will in the Scripture and His dealing with man, might be to say: “We love Him because He first Loved us” Love is always free to choose!


_________________
Llewellyn van der Merwe

 2008/11/20 18:05Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy