Human Freewill the devil's greatest trick

[Billy Evmur]

Set free from what? Being born again makes you a baby believer. Babies are not mature. The only freedom that Jesus came to bring us is a freedom from the power of sin. And babies are not free from that power. So your idea of salvation is a religious one. Being born again is a change in the inner man, a regeneration. But it is without power until we enter INTO Christ.



The Bible speaks of this freedom. But that only comes about by the putting away of the outer man. You need to die in order to live. There is no understanding of this in the modern church since Christianity became a religion rather than an actual empowered spiritual life.



No one is ever out of the reach of God.

We are free to walk in our own power or else to go to God in order to abide in Christ. When we do that we walk as He walked. Otherwise we will succumb to the power of sin in the outer man. In Him is no sin. When we put on Christ we put on His nature.

We are created in the image of God in the inner man. But the outer man is fashioned according to the fallen nature under the corrupting influence of the devil. Being set free is then within ourselves, from our own old natures that sin.

Then we can fly to God to abide with Him in kingdom life. That life is eternal.

It is important to know the difference.

First I do not recognise what you say that being born again makes a person a baby believer. When Paul got saved he immediately began preaching Christ with power.

It is true that he spent many years in the desert before he was called into apostleship. But our whole lives are spent crying for the pure milk of God's word ... that's what we do.

When Jesus healed Bartimeus He said "go thy way thy faith hath made thee whole" and the bible says Bartimeus followed Him in the way.

Jesus set Him FREE but he chose to follow Christ, never-the-less his freedom was absolute and real.

Don't mix up salvation which is a free gift and discipleship which is costly. You don't pay in any way shape or form for salvation, before or after.

 

[Billy Evmur]

It is the power of the cross that saves us from sin, not an understanding of the cross. We are to be crucified with Him, dead to sin as He is. It is the power of grace that causes us to walk like Jesus, not a belief in grace.

You have to BELIEVE in that power, in order to believe you must know about it.

 

[Billy Evmur]

I would rather be a slave of righteousness to the Lord of life than a slave of shame to the lord of flies.

Our free will is to choose Hell or choose YHWH. This earthly test seems so hard that’s it’s unreal. We are always left with very hard choices and temptations that are almost more than we can handle.

I truly fear that almost everyone I know will end up in hell. People always compare themselves to people who have sinned far worse than they have and they think they’re fine. That’s not the way it works.

Free will, perish or live. I guess it is just the way you look at it.

If you believe the doctrine of human freewill you will believe that just a few shrivelled souls will be saved, if you believe in the free sovereign grace doctrines you will believe MANY shall come from the East and the West and sit at table with Abe, Ike and Jake. You will believe that God's house which is not small will be FULL. You will believe that those who gather in heaven dressed in white, having washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb will be a crowd IMPOSSIBLE for any man to number.

Freewill doctrines depends upon man, the free grace doctrine depends upon God only.

 

[Billy Evmur]

I read the message differently.

For me, the Bible identifies that a form of salvation is possible, it exists, and it means we do not need to die, and can live forever.
However it is up to us to seek out and find that thing. It is available freely, to all but we must both believe in it and seek it otherwise we shall not find it. Concerning that thing Jesus says:

John 3:56
"Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves."

As with many things in the Bible this is allegorical imo. We do not need to nibble on an actual body nor drink blood like vampires. At the same time it is not sufficient to simply believe in something. If I simply believe in the existence of water yet do not actually get hold of it and drink it, I will surely die.

Jesus's words are for me personally, a stark and clear warning. We MUST eat and we MUST drink something. What that something is, is recounted in the Bible in numerous places, always allegorically and it is the searching and seeking out of that thing that should occupy our focus because without that thing, as Jesus says, "there is no life in us".

The act of seeking requires two distinct actions. First we must set in our minds that which we desire. We must "pray" for what we desire. Then second we must put our heart in a particular state. We must engender in our heart the feelings and emotions that would occur IF that desire had been fulfilled. i.e. we must get our hearts (and thus emotions) into a state as if we already had that thing we desire. This requirement to align the mind and the heart is mentioned all over the Bible. For example:

Jeremiah 29:12-13
"Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you. You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. "

Romans 10:1-21
"Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved"

Jeremiah 17:10
"I the Lord search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds.”

Hebrews 4:12
"For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. "

Psalms 26:2
"Prove me, O Lord, and try me; test my heart and my mind."

Psalms 19:14
"Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in your sight, O Lord, my rock and my redeemer."

There are I am sure many more examples to be found.

People moan about predestination but this doctrine consigns how many BILLIONS to hell who never once heard the gospel?

 

[Renniks]

I am in no dilemma at all ... God has set me FREE, that's what He predestined for me. He didn't programn me or make me a robot.

So you won the heavenly lottery? What about the person who doesn't win, because he was destined for hell instead? You have no compassion for that poor guy?

 

[Renniks]

If you believe the doctrine of human freewill you will believe that just a few shrivelled souls will be saved, if you believe in the free sovereign grace doctrines you will believe MANY shall come from the East and the West and sit at table with Abe, Ike and Jake. You will believe that God's house which is not small will be FULL. You will believe that those who gather in heaven dressed in white, having washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb will be a crowd IMPOSSIBLE for any man to number.

Freewill doctrines depends upon man, the free grace doctrine depends upon God only.

No, that makes no sense. Irresistible grace may save one or none. How can you ever even know if you are chosen? You can't. You can only hope you are.

 

[Grailhunter]

Why are you sorry that I should believe in a doctrine taught by Paul? don't you believe Paul's doctrine?

Maybe YOU make the same mistake Calvin made, he supposed that the doctrine of predestination must mean God predestined people to hell. Is that what you believe? Paul does not say so.

Do you have your own brand of predestinationism?
Are you going to name it after yourself?
And the people here are not making a mistake I can give you an avalanche of definitions for predestinationism.
But if your definition is different than how it is commonly defined....give it a go.

 

[Wrangler]

Without free will, the whole notion of sin is gone.

 

[Mantis]

Freewill doctrines depends upon man, the free grace doctrine depends upon God only.

Maybe it’s something in between

 

[Marymog]

I am in no dilemma at all ... God has set me FREE, that's what He predestined for me. He didn't programn me or make me a robot.

Soooooo he did predestine you to write the OP???

Did he predestine other men to write that we are not predestined????

 

[Sabertooth]

Human Freewill the devil's greatest trick...

Satan could not have tempted Eve (followed by Adam), if there was no freewill.

 

[Whetstone]

Satan could not have tempted Eve (followed by Adam), if there was no freewill.

Eve could not have been tempted in the first place if Satan did not exist
Eve could not have been tempted in the first place if God had not allowed it
Eve could not have been tempted in the first place if God had placed the Tree Of Knowledge somewhere they could not get to it
Eve could not have been tempted in the first place if God had not primed her psyche by telling her not to eat of that specific tree

Can I tempt you to put your index finger on your nose?

No. Because it doesn't represent any kind of temptation to do so. There's no stigma attached to touching your nose.
There are no "laws" saying we shouldn't touch our noses. There are no dire connotations associated with touching our nose.

The whole notion of "temptation" merely arises from being placed into a specific environment and having rules and laws imposed on you.

There is no free will involved if you are placed into such an environment and have your brain and psyche primed by the imposition of rules and laws which you have no control of and by psychological techniques to focus your attention on the things that are outlawed.

To have freewill you would need to have the freedom to go to a different environment where there was no Tree Of Life or Knowledge to even be worried about eating from.

I can't possibly tempt you to eat a Martian Flumberry because you can't possibly get to Mars and get to a Flumberry in the first place.
My telling you to never eat of the Martian Flumberry would be meaningless, ridiculous.

But if I then very deliberately brought Martian Flumberries here to Earth and created a specific environment where they were growing and were within your reach and then told you "do not eat the Flumberries" then I would have created a deliberate environment whose sole purpose was to make Flumberries available to you and to tempt you by drawing attention to them. A rigged situation from the outset.

From such simple logic I personally conclude that the story of Adam and Eve is mostly allegorical and that there must be a deeper meaning.
I believe the same to be true of the story of Noah and the Great Flood and most of Genesis.

 

[Whetstone]

Without free will, the whole notion of sin is gone.

Do you believe it is possible for any human to not sin?

 

[Renniks]

Eve could not have been tempted in the first place if Satan did not exist
Eve could not have been tempted in the first place if God had not allowed it
Eve could not have been tempted in the first place if God had placed the Tree Of Knowledge somewhere they could not get to it
Eve could not have been tempted in the first place if God had not primed her psyche by telling her not to eat of that specific tree

Can I tempt you to put your index finger on your nose?

No. Because it doesn't represent any kind of temptation to do so. There's no stigma attached to touching your nose.
There are no "laws" saying we shouldn't touch our noses. There are no dire connotations associated with touching our nose.

The whole notion of "temptation" merely arises from being placed into a specific environment and having rules and laws imposed on you.

There is no free will involved if you are placed into such an environment and have your brain and psyche primed by the imposition of rules and laws which you have no control of and by psychological techniques to focus your attention on the things that are outlawed.

To have freewill you would need to have the freedom to go to a different environment where there was no Tree Of Life or Knowledge to even be worried about eating from.

I can't possibly tempt you to eat a Martian Flumberry because you can't possibly get to Mars and get to a Flumberry in the first place.
My telling you to never eat of the Martian Flumberry would be meaningless, ridiculous.

But if I then very deliberately brought Martian Flumberries here to Earth and created a specific environment where they were growing and were within your reach and then told you "do not eat the Flumberries" then I would have created a deliberate environment whose sole purpose was to make Flumberries available to you and to tempt you by drawing attention to them. A rigged situation from the outset.

From such simple logic I personally conclude that the story of Adam and Eve is mostly allegorical and that there must be a deeper meaning.
I believe the same to be true of the story of Noah and the Great Flood and most of Genesis.

Well since you believe the stories are just stories, that kind of cancels out your opinion on free will IMO. But, of course, everyone has limits on what they can do and everyone has temptations and live in the situation God provided. How that cancels out free will, I don't understand. By "free will" not one is meaning unlimited freedom to do the impossible. I can't flap my arms and fly to mars with my free will. But I certainly can choose between ice cream and toast at any given moment. I can certainly choose to listen to God or Satan at any given moment.

 

[Whetstone]

I can't flap my arms and fly to mars with my free will. But I certainly can choose between ice cream and toast at any given moment.

In what way is being limited to either ice cream or toast any kind of real free will? There are gazillions of food types to be had and gazillions more on other planets that you've never heard or, never smelled, never tasted. God presumably knows them all.

Suppose I confine you to a prison cell and only offer you ice cream or toast to eat for the rest of your life.

Do you seriously consider that your paltry choice is free will? What is such free will worth?

 

[Sabertooth]

From such simple logic I personally conclude that the story of Adam and Eve is mostly allegorical...

What matters (in this thread) is whether or not that is the OP's position...

 

[Renniks]

In what way is being limited to either ice cream or toast any kind of real free will? There are gazillions of food types to be had and gazillions more on other planets that you've never heard or, never smelled, never tasted. God presumably knows them all.

Suppose I confine you to a prison cell and only offer you ice cream or toast to eat for the rest of your life.

Do you seriously consider that your paltry choice is free will? What is such free will worth?

Of course. Bondage of the will would mean I could never choose between options. And of course we have many options on any given day. I can choose to stay in bed tomorrow and whine because my back hurts, or I can do my work regardless for example.

 

[Whetstone]

I can choose to stay in bed tomorrow and whine because my back hurts, or I can do my work regardless for example.

If you stayed in bed because your back hurt, then you'd be doing it because your back hurt. Cause and effect. Not free choice. A choice highly skewed by impacts and forces acting upon you. The very fact that you can contemplate staying in bed is because you have a bed.

But you can't not sleep. You can hold out for a while but eventually you WILL sleep. You have no choice in that matter. That's because you have been designed and built in a certain way whether you like it or not. It is a restriction, a constraint. You can not swim underwater for any significant length of time because of the way you have been built. Your choices are an illusion. They only appear like choices because you can not compute the infinite variables in play, the infinite forces acting upon your brain and all your bodily sensors. It is all totally predictable because everything occurs via the principle of cause and effect. That is why God knows all. He can compute all of those variables and see every chain of cause and effect. From the moment the universe was set in motion, everything was inevitable. It is like one gigantic computer programme.

 

[Stumpmaster]

But as I have said, all this "intellectual" difficulty and conundrum occurs because you are trying to make literal sense of a story which is just allegorical. Adam and Eve represent the Male and Female principles, the Tree of Life is not a physical tree.

So, then Whetstone, Whetstone, Whetstone, at what point do you suppose the genealogies recorded in the Bible transition from allegorical representations to real people?

Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

The Genealogy of Jesus Christ​

Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
Luk 3:24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
Luk 3:25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
Luk 3:26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
Luk 3:27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
Luk 3:28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
Luk 3:29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
Luk 3:30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
Luk 3:31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
Luk 3:32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
Luk 3:33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
Luk 3:34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
Luk 3:35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
Luk 3:36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
Luk 3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

 

[Stumpmaster]

I disagree. Not least because those "choices" are merely artificial constructs in your mind. Those choices are totally framed and thus controlled by a wide range of factors that you have no control of. By your gender, by your childhood programming and conditioning, by your life experiences up to that point, by the very limited amount of information your brain has received and processed up to that point. If external forces can control all those impacting forces then the "choice" is not a choice at all but a highly predictable inevitability. Place a man in a desolate place with little food and it is inevitable that he will look to plant and grow his own food to survive, to seek out a source of water. It's not "choice", it's inevitability framed by external forces. As simple as my examples were in my previous post you have nevertheless been unable to refute the simple truths they convey.

You are conflating causation with capacity to choose.

Red or Green. Choice = Green.
Why Green? Causation = My preference.