Gods will vs mans free will

[Rufus]

Job 15:14 is spoken by a man who God says did not speak correctly. I see you agree with that man. Join the dots.

I know...you keep telling us that. But then...shouldn't we just write off the entire book of Job since it's replete with errors? All those errors would make the book totally untrustworthy, would they not?

And, yes, I agree with Job because the Book is divinely inspired by God and the specific passages I cited harmonize with the rest of scripture.

P.S. Since Job was such a pathetic spiritual slouch, I wonder why God didn't command Job's three friends to intercede for poor Job and offer sacrifices on his behalf.

 

[Lafftur]

The life that God wants us to choose is not eternal life, which Christ has already accomplished on the cross for those that God gave him, but is that good and abundant life of peace, joy and contentment as we sojourn here on earth. This life can only be chosen by those who have been born again.

Actually, I believe it is both - Life now IN CHRIST on this Earth and Eternal Life IN CHRIST for eternity.

Life is IN CHRIST.

 

[PaulThomson]

There are no contradictions within the Doctrines of Grace. Those "contradictions" are monsters of your own worldly imagination. Maybe a friendly exorcism would do the trick for you...

Paradox

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Paradox




A paradox is a logically self-contradictory statement or a statement that runs contrary to one's expectation.

Rufus said:
Well...on the other hand, the bible is filled to the brim with paradoxes...so what's one more?

 

[PaulThomson]

I know...you keep telling us that. But then...shouldn't we just write off the entire book of Job since it's replete with errors? All those errors would make the book totally untrustworthy, would they not?

And, yes, I agree with Job because the Book is divinely inspired by God and the specific passages I cited harmonize with the rest of scripture.

P.S. Since Job was such a pathetic spiritual slouch, I wonder why God didn't command Job's three friends to intercede for poor Job and offer sacrifices on his behalf.

There are some chapters of Job that are expressing things that are true so we can understand more how God operates and thinks; and there are some chapters recording the opinions of blind guides, who you happen to agree with yourself: chapters written to point out the foolish fallacious thinking of men not uninspired by the Holy Spirit.

Job's three verbose friends were no more insightful than Job, probably less so. Maybe God was trying to get the three friends to intercede for Job, but they couldn't hear God. Elihu did hear God and did intercede for Job. Job proved to be teachable and correctable. Good on Job.

 

[Lafftur]

Death, according to Strong's concordance is "a separation". The life, in Duet 30:19, is not referencing eternal life, but abundant life of joy and peace that his children can have if they choose to follow his commandments. If they choose death, they will separate themselves from God's fellowship, but not from their eternal inheritance.

In Deuteronomy a lot was said about blessings and curses…. which infers Life and Death.

Adam and Eve were full of Life until they sinned which resulted in them being cursed and separated from dwelling with God in the garden.

It’s all intertwined but in simplicity….

Life is ONLY IN CHRIST.

Death is everything NOT IN CHRIST.

 

[Lafftur]

Paradox
View attachment 267804
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Paradox




A paradox is a logically self-contradictory statement or a statement that runs contrary to one's expectation.

Rufus said:
Well...on the other hand, the bible is filled to the brim with paradoxes...so what's one more?

The contradictions and paradoxes occur with “literal” dependency on human reasoning interpretation when “spiritual” interpretation by the Holy Spirit is needed….

He that has an ear let him hear what the Spirit is saying…

Just ask the Holy Spirit for understanding in humility- total dependence on the Holy Spirit.

 

[PaulThomson]

The contradictions and paradoxes occur with “literal” dependency on human reasoning interpretation when “spiritual” interpretation by the Holy Spirit is needed….

He that has an ear let him hear what the Spirit is saying…

Just ask the Holy Spirit for understanding in humility- total dependence on the Holy Spirit.

Why do you think ear here does not mean literal ears, but must mean spiritual ears? Why is Jesus not saying, "Everyone who has ears that are working, pay attention to what I am saying to you."

 

[Lafftur]

Why do you think ear here does not mean literal ears, but must mean spiritual ears? Why is Jesus not saying, "Everyone who has ears that are working, pay attention to what I am saying to you."

Because Jesus Christ said to hear what the SPIRIT is saying… which can ONLY be heard with spiritual ears that relate spiritual understanding to our human brains.

 

[Saul-to-Paul]

God created man but gave man free will. Yet God wants man to give us our free will and live according to Gods will.
This intersection of free will and "discerning" Gods will, can be quite challenging.

Here is an example. I'm 51 currently out of work. I've been praying for God to guide me through this difficult time. To be honest, I DONT want to go back to corporate work, but the reality of finances and such might dictate i do so versus starting a new business on my own.
I've been praying and asking God to open doors and opportunities which requires faith. At the same time, God isn't a genie, so a job or new business isn't going to come unless I apply, network, etc. I must DO or ACT upon my own free will and or thoughts to make it happen. While there may be some Christians are many who might say patiently wait upon the Lord.

Another example, prior to be going back to church, I was listening to David Goggins (Navy seal, motivational speaker) and purchased his two audio books. Listening to his message of self-empowerment allowed me to lose 20+ pounds through dedicated working out and a strict diet. The mindset of "you are on your own" and you can do it was empowering. However, does this conflict with biblical principals as well? For the bible says "I am made perfect in your weakness." My point is we have the ability through our own free will do certain things, we can choose what car we buy, what foods we eat, surely, I don't need Gods discernment on everything, etc right?

I don't know if others feel this, but when I feel vulnerable (and humble) when I pray to God several times a day.
But when I feel like it's not my time (God doesn't or hasn't answer my prayer) then I say OK, and I'm going to make something happen if you get my point. Please correct me if I'm not thinking about this right.

Only God's will matters. God is 100% in charge. Man lost their free will (died) in the garden of Eden. After that episode:
Romans 3:10-12 KJV
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Romans 5:12 KJV
12 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:

God must take the first and last step to save a person.

Philippians 1:6
6 Being confident of this very thing, that he (God) which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

 

[Webers.Home]

.
Serial killer Ed Kemper committed a number of unspeakable crimes against
women, but nevertheless guys in his situation are not beyond redemption.

● John 3:16-17 . . For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only
son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For
God did not send His son into the world to condemn the world, but to save
the world through him.

The Greek word translated "loved" rarely has anything to do with fondness.
It mostly pertains to benevolence, e.g. kindness, courtesy, lenience,
tolerance, generosity, charity, sympathy, compassion, etc. In point of fact
no doubt many of us disgust the supreme being and bear little, if any,
resemblance to the kind of folks with whom He prefers to associate.

Nevertheless, God was thinking of everybody, including Ed Kemper, when
Jesus went to the cross.

● Isa 53:6 . .We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to
his own way; and The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

So if he had a mind to, Ed could take advantage of Jesus' crucifixion to
protect himself from retribution. But he'd still be the same old Ed Kemper,
and in that state, Ed has some very serious issues with women that are
humanly impossible to cure.

Well; I've no doubt that Ed would be the first to tell you that women in
Heaven would be in very grave danger with him there if not for a way to
relieve Ed of his issues with women. Well, as a matter of fact, God is in the
wings for guys in Ed's condition and He's well able to peel Ed's negative
issues off him like a dead skin so he can depart this life a different man.

● Col 2:11-12 . . In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the
sinful nature-- not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with
the circumcision done by Christ.

Judaism has its circumcision, but Christianity has one that's much better
because it has the power to liberate people from human nature's rather
disagreeable inclinations, viz: whereas Judaism's circumcision is merely a
ritual, Christianity's is the hand of God.
_

 

[Webers.Home]

.
● Rom 5:12 . . Sin entered the world through one man, and death through
sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

The grammatical tense of that verse indicates Adam's entire posterity was
condemned by his sin in real time, i.e. the moment he tasted the forbidden
fruit, Adam's entire list of descendants, beginning with Eve, became
joint principals in his act not in their own time, but back there in his time.

FAQ: Did Jesus' virgin conception isolate him from Adam's mistake?

REPLY: No; he's on the list of Adam's descendants.

FAQ: Well then, how can 1Pet 1:18-19 honestly say Jesus was a lamb
without blemish or spot?

REPLY: Jesus committed no sins of his own to answer for, i.e. he was a
100% sinless man (John 8:29, 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15,1Pet 2:22) In point of
fact, according to 1John 3:9, it was impossible for Jesus to commit sins of
his own.

FAQ: Was Adam's act a Hell-worthy sin?

REPLY: No, the appropriate consequence for tasting the forbidden fruit was
simply the loss of immortality. In other words: had not Jesus been crucified
he would've eventually died of some other cause.
_

 

[Rufus]

Every choice is a moral choice. Every decision is a moral decision. If it matters how eating and drinking...very mundane facets of life...are done, it probably matters not only the color of your socks, but which pair you choose. Not because the choices in themselves matter, but because the choices reflect an affection for, and a dependency upon God, and a primacy for His glory.
Have you ever considered what it would look like to drink a glass of orange juice to the glory of God?

Well...now that all foods are "clean" in this NC dispensation, it seems the only concern we have is with drinking certain beverages, since drunkenness is still a sin in this age. I don't see every choice as being moral in nature. In fact, I think that is an extreme view since I can't find any laws governing the color of clothing we should wear. And...we are warned about being morally-spiritually extreme to wit:

Eccl 7:15-18
15 In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these:

a righteous man perishing in his righteousness,
and a wicked man living long in his wickedness.
16 Do not be overrighteous,
neither be overwise —
why destroy yourself?
17 Do not be overwicked,
and do not be a fool —
why die before your time?
18 It is good to grasp the one
and not let go of the other.
The man who fears God will avoid all [extremes ].
NIV

Most translations render the last clause of v.18, "for the one who fears God comes forth from them all". In other words, the wise man will avoid being "overrighteous", "overwise" or "overwicked". The NIV, then, captures the sense very well in the last part of this verse which is to avoid all extremes, which is the central point to the passage.

I think a great example of this can be found in Jesus' lesson he taught in Mat 15:1-20. The Pharisees were clearly being "overwise" and "overrighteous" by adding their man-made traditions to the Law of God.

Just my 2-1/2 cents worth...

 

[Rufus]

.
● Rom 5:12 . . Sin entered the world through one man, and death through
sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

The grammatical tense of that verse indicates Adam's entire posterity was
condemned by his sin in real time, i.e. the moment he tasted the forbidden
fruit, Adam's entire list of descendants, beginning with Eve, became
joint principals in his act not in their own time, but back there in his time.

FAQ: Did Jesus' virgin conception isolate him from Adam's mistake?

REPLY: No; he's on the list of Adam's descendants.

FAQ: Well then, how can 1Pet 1:18-19 honestly say Jesus was a lamb
without blemish or spot?

REPLY: Jesus committed no sins of his own to answer for, i.e. he was a
100% sinless man (John 8:29, 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15,1Pet 2:22) In point of
fact, according to 1John 3:9, it was impossible for Jesus to commit sins of
his own.

FAQ: Was Adam's act a Hell-worthy sin?

REPLY: No, the appropriate consequence for tasting the forbidden fruit was
simply the loss of immortality. In other words: had not Jesus been crucified
he would've eventually died of some other cause.
_

This is false. Jesus did not descend from Adam's seed. He descended from the Woman's seed (Gen 3:15)! Therefore, Jesus never inherited Adam's sin nature since his father was not human!

Someone may balk at this explanation, but there must be a good reason why God decreed that his Son would descend from Eve's seed -- a concept that would have been totally foreign to the ancient culture of the time. The people of that time always understood that it was man's seed that caused conception in a woman. Yet...God goes entirely against that rightly understood and commonly accepted concept because it wouldn't work with His plan. And the likely reason it wouldn't work is because the sin nature is transmitted to a man's children by his sperm. In other words, sin affects the entire person. It affects him physiologically. It affects his material and immaterial parts of his humanity. And this would account for the necessity of a divinely produced conception. Jesus came into this world with an impeccable, holy nature. There was no taint of any corruption in the Last Adam's DNA!

 

[Cameron143]

Well...now that all foods are "clean" in this NC dispensation, it seems the only concern we have is with drinking certain beverages, since drunkenness is still a sin in this age. I don't see every choice as being moral in nature. In fact, I think that is an extreme view since I can't find any laws governing the color of clothing we should wear. And...we are warned about being morally-spiritually extreme to wit:

Eccl 7:15-18
15 In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these:

a righteous man perishing in his righteousness,
and a wicked man living long in his wickedness.
16 Do not be overrighteous,
neither be overwise —
why destroy yourself?
17 Do not be overwicked,
and do not be a fool —
why die before your time?
18 It is good to grasp the one
and not let go of the other.
The man who fears God will avoid all [extremes ].
NIV

Most translations render the last clause of v.18, "for the one who fears God comes forth from them all". In other words, the wise man will avoid being "overrighteous", "overwise" or "overwicked". The NIV, then, captures the sense very well in the last part of this verse which is to avoid all extremes, which is the central point to the passage.

I think a great example of this can be found in Jesus' lesson he taught in Mat 15:1-20. The Pharisees were clearly being "overwise" and "overrighteous" by adding their man-made traditions to the Law of God.

Just my 2-1/2 cents worth...

I agree that to appear to be righteous is void of value, but if every thought is to be taken captive and every word spoken is subject to scrutiny, then no choice is unimportant.
I'll grant you that few people scrutinize their lives to this extent, and that those who do often do so to buffet their sense of self righteousness, but that doesn't make genuine self examination a poor choice. It accentuates the need for it.

 

[Rufus]

Paradox
View attachment 267804
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Paradox




A paradox is a logically self-contradictory statement or a statement that runs contrary to one's expectation.

Rufus said:
Well...on the other hand, the bible is filled to the brim with paradoxes...so what's one more?

Wikipedia is your source for truth? Not very discriminating, are you? par How 'bout this definition from my old and trusted MW Collegiate?

Main Entryar£a£dox
Pronunciation:*par-*-*d*ks
Function:noun
Etymology:Latin paradoxum, from Greek paradoxon, from neuter of paradoxos contrary to expectation, from para- + dokein to think, seem— more at DECENT
Date:1540

1 : a tenet contrary to received opinion
2 a : a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true b : a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true c : an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises
3 : one that possesses seemingly contradictory qualities or phases

Or here is a Dictionary.com definition:

paradox

[ par-uh-doks ]
Phonetic (Standard)IPA
noun

1. a statement that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth:
   “Less is more” is a paradox often repeated in the arts and other fields.
   It is a paradox of healthy grief that we must work at it while surrendering to it.
2. any person, thing, or situation displaying an apparently contradictory nature:
   In the media the candidate was called a paradox—an unpopular populist.
   Synonyms: riddle, anomaly, puzzle
3. a self-contradictory and false statement, especially one arising from seemingly acceptable premises and correct logical argument.
4. time paradox ( def 1 ).
5. Also called par·a·dox il·lu·sion [par, -, uh, -doks i-loo-zh, uh, n]. an optical illusion depicting an impossible object, often a two-dimensional figure that the viewer intuitively interprets as representing a three-dimensional one, but which cannot actually exist in three dimensions: brought to popular attention especially by the work of M. C. Escher.
6. Archaic. an opinion or statement contrary to commonly accepted opinio
   
   There's a difference between an outright contradiction and a paradox. And how you can tell the difference between the two is that a contradiction will always violate the Law of Non-contradiction, whereas a paradox will not.
   
   

 

[Rufus]

I agree that to appear to be righteous is void of value, but if every thought is to be taken captive and every word spoken is subject to scrutiny, then no choice is unimportant.
I'll grant you that few people scrutinize their lives to this extent, and that those who do often do so to buffet their sense of self righteousness, but that doesn't make genuine self examination a poor choice. It accentuates the need for it.

And this is where spiritual discernment comes in, doesn't it? And this is talked about quite a bit in the Wisdom Books! We are called to discern between good and evil -- and a great and awesome good we have under this NC dispensation is liberty. We are no long under the OC Law, rather we're under the Law of Christ -- his Royal Law -- in which he taught us what the two greatest commandments are. So...if we use the twin laws of love, I suppose the spiritual acid test we could use to judge if we're rightly living under the Law of Liberty is to ask this kind of question: If I wear my blue socks today, will the world perceive that I don't love my neighbor as myself? Or if i don't wear my blue socks today, will God be offended and perceive I don't love Him?

 

[Cameron143]

And this is where spiritual discernment comes in, doesn't it? And this is talked about quite a bit in the Wisdom Books! We are called to discern between good and evil -- and a great and awesome good we have under this NC dispensation is liberty. We are no long under the OC Law, rather we're under the Law of Christ -- his Royal Law -- in which he taught us what the two greatest commandments are. So...if we use the twin laws of love, I suppose the spiritual acid test we could use to judge if we're rightly living under the Law of Liberty is to ask this kind of question: If I wear my blue socks today, will the world perceive that I don't love my neighbor as myself? Or if i don't wear my blue socks today, will God be offended and perceive I don't love Him?

I think the test is whether we do a thing to the glory of God or not. And how can that be done without first a consideration of God in regard to whatever it is we are thinking or doing?

 

[Kroogz]

You misunderstand what he is saying. Every man is subject to his nature.

Suppose you go to a car lot and want to purchase a vehicle. You may like the most expensive car on the lot, but are you free to buy it? The dealership will run your credit history and check your income to see if you possess the requisite history and income to warrant such a large loan. For most, while they are able to choose a vehicle and get approved for a loan, they aren't able to choose the most expensive vehicle.

So it is with man and God. Man is limited in what he can choose in a relationship with God. Instead of an income statement and prior credit history, man is limited by his nature. He is at enmity with God, is a slave to sin, and views the gospel as foolishness. And just as a man cannot change his credit history, neither can man change his fallen estate. It is only the grace and mercy of God that can change the heart of an individual. And until such time, we drive a clunker.

God paid for that expensive car. And He made it available to ALL. That is His grace and mercy revealed to ALL. We are limited in our choices......But He put out His Gospel to ALL. In this day and age, who hasn't heard of His Gospel? Man is free to accept it or reject it.

 

[Cameron143]

God paid for that expensive car. And He made it available to ALL. That is His grace and mercy revealed to ALL. We are limited in our choices......But He put out His Gospel to ALL. In this day and age, who hasn't heard of His Gospel? Man is free to accept it or reject it.

What about people throughout history who never heard the gospel?

 

[Rufus]

I think the test is whether we do a thing to the glory of God or not. And how can that be done without first a consideration of God in regard to whatever it is we are thinking or doing?

Yes...we want to do all things for his glory -- but the question that needs to be asked to determine if any given choice we make would be to his glory should be based on the two greatest commandments. I don't think God is going to think of me less for choosing to wear one color of socks over another; or for that matter that my neighbor would perceive that I don't love him because of the color of socks I'm wearing.

Since Jesus wasn't very concerned about his disciples eating with dirty hands, which would y seem to carry weightier moral-spiritual implications, e.g. keeping God's temple (our bodies) free from food contamination since even our bodies are not our own, then I have to think how much less the color socks we wear.

In fact, what I just wrote above brought to mind the Conscientious Objector letter I wrote a few years ago (but never had to formally present) during the height of the covid "pandemic" madness which to me was a genuine life issue -- an issue whereby my choice would either glorify God or not glorify him. The crux to my objection was not along the usual lines of fetus cell material in the drugs, but on something even more fundamental: God owns me! All of me! And God has given me stewardship over my own body. He did not give stewardship to any third party, e.g. any government/civil entity. Therefore, since the government doesn't own anything in this world, how much less has it any right to tell me what I must or shouldn't put into my body? That is between my Creator and myself. And if others feel threatened by my personal health decision to not inject experimental drugs into my body, then the onus should be on them to take whatever additional measures of protection they deem necessary to further ensure their personal safety.