Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

[Blain]

You asked, " is there a difference between fleshly faith and spiritual faith?"

Basically they are the same. the difference is what the "object " of faith is, and how said faith is "applied," and how long they take to become fact.

using the examples i gave you for temporal faith and faithing.
In 1) the objects of faith are the food (the parts of food you can't see and are invisible).
2) the object of faith is the air, invisible and unseen.
3) the object of faith is the car, specifically all the working engine parts. they are unseen, invisible.
4) the intersection, the object of faith are the people in the other cars, and what they are doing at that moment. unseen, invisible.

Not much different in the spiritual relationship with the living God, unseen, invisible. the difference between the flesh and spirit, is i can have the food tested and proven to be safe, faith over, it's a fact now. I can have the air quality tested and proven to be safe, faith over, it's a fact now. I can have my engine looked at and proven to be safe, faith over, it's a fact now. So all theses acts of faith in the temporal are becoming facts at some point. And, some day our faithing relationship with the living and invisible God will become a fact also, and that act of faith will be over, and will be a fact now. It's just going to take longer. ( we just need to make sure we are fulfilling pisteuo correctly with a continually surrendered life and living a life inspired by such surrender. And not by the mistranslated words believe, believer, and believing in Gods word. the object of Faith and faithing has to be God himself.)

As for Rom. 10:17, this is the problem.

1) the word "Faith" in that passage is the noun pistis, 4102 "a thing" and is translated to mean conviction, reliance upon, ( it's not the verb "pisteuo" where we get the mistranslated words believe, believer, and believing.)

2) the word "hearing", used twice in that passage,189, also a noun, a thing, and means a thing heard, ( in the strongs, it notes that this kind of hearing needs to be compared to a courtroom hearing. in which a decision is always made.)

3) the other important word in Rom. 10:17 is the word "word". 4487, Rhema and means "an utterance, narration, instruction." ( not the word euaggelion which is the Greek word for gospel)

4) the word "God" 2316 and means supreme deity.

So this is how rom. 10:17 should read, in relation to God and His word.
"So then Faith ( conviction and reliance upon God) comes ( added by the translators) by hearing, (a thing heard) a hearing ( a thing heard ) by the word (utterances, narration, and instruction) of God . (the supreme deity.)

It's when we try to make the word "faith" a verb and insert the mistranslated words believe, believer, and believing in this passage is error. And insert the word gospel for "word" in this passage which is error also. and try to use the word Lord or Jesus in the Passage instead of God. And yes , before you go ballistic on me, i understand all about the trinity and am in full understanding of it. But the passage uses the word "God" which specifically means "supreme deity".

So in my discernment, Rom. 10:17 is highlighting more of the call ( utterance, narration, instruction, of the Father to Christ when this was written. Not the gospel as we know it today. so even though we (should) have a better understanding of "the gospel" today, we need to be careful not to use it to support a bad understanding like the believe and recieve doctrine. IMU

So in short they are same thing as long as the object of it is the key factor that is another fair point thank you for clarifying I do apologize I was unable to read your whole post my eyes get really strained when I read to much but I did get the gist of your points and I can admit I was wrong in my understanding

 

[cv5]

Ok fair points, but now I have a question is there is a difference between dleshly faith and spiritual faith? Because in scripture and by scripture it speaks of faith by hearing the word of God now in every instance you mentioned there was no word of or from God so why did the scriptures say faith is produced by that if faith itself can be produced without that?

There is no such thing as fleshly faith. Because no living human being is created merely flesh alone.
The flesh is only the space suit, the container. The will and faith are that which animate the body.
This denying of the human spirit God intentionally created as part of every person is another horrific Calvinist lie.

Psa 31:5
Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O LORD God of truth.

Job 32:8
But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

Job 34:14
If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath;

Pro 20:27
The spirit of man is the candle of the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly.

Ecc 3:21
Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

 

[studier]

That depends on how well you know the spirits voice, the spirit speaks to the spirit not the mind

See #34,071.

 

[Blain]

The Spirits voice is literally the literal written word.

It is not some Lakota spirit quest Hanbléčeya where one is seeking guidance from Wakan Tanka as @Magenta seems to believe.

the spirits voice is in the word yes but it also is a still small voice that speaks truth to our hearts and in understanding his word the spiritwill guide you to all truths but you have to know how to hear it his voice is not a text or ink his voice is inside you and all around you

 

[Blain]

There is no such thing as fleshly faith. Because no living human being is created merely flesh alone.
The flesh is only the space suit, the container. The will and faith are that which animate the body.
This denying of the human spirit God intentionally created as part of every person is another horrific Calvinist lie.

Psa 31:5
Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O LORD God of truth.

Job 32:8
But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

Job 34:14
If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath;

Pro 20:27
The spirit of man is the candle of the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly.

Ecc 3:21
Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

I never said we are merely flesh now did I? and also will you stop with the slandering and throwing the term calvinist or calvinistic around like free candy because I am not a calvinist and I bet you that your accusations of it are not even true

 

[cv5]

You asked, " is there a difference between fleshly faith and spiritual faith?"

Basically they are the same. the difference is what the "object " of faith is, and how said faith is "applied," and how long they take to become fact.

using the examples i gave you for temporal faith and faithing.
In 1) the objects of faith are the food (the parts of food you can't see and are invisible).
2) the object of faith is the air, invisible and unseen.
3) the object of faith is the car, specifically all the working engine parts. they are unseen, invisible.
4) the intersection, the object of faith are the people in the other cars, and what they are doing at that moment. unseen, invisible.

Not much different in the spiritual relationship with the living God, unseen, invisible. the difference between the flesh and spirit, is i can have the food tested and proven to be safe, faith over, it's a fact now. I can have the air quality tested and proven to be safe, faith over, it's a fact now. I can have my engine looked at and proven to be safe, faith over, it's a fact now. So all theses acts of faith in the temporal are becoming facts at some point. And, some day our faithing relationship with the living and invisible God will become a fact also, and that act of faith will be over, and will be a fact now. It's just going to take longer. ( we just need to make sure we are fulfilling pisteuo correctly with a continually surrendered life and living a life inspired by such surrender. And not by the mistranslated words believe, believer, and believing in Gods word. the object of Faith and faithing has to be God himself.)

As for Rom. 10:17, this is the problem.

1) the word "Faith" in that passage is the noun pistis, 4102 "a thing" and is translated to mean conviction, reliance upon, ( it's not the verb "pisteuo" where we get the mistranslated words believe, believer, and believing.)

2) the word "hearing", used twice in that passage,189, also a noun, a thing, and means a thing heard, ( in the strongs, it notes that this kind of hearing needs to be compared to a courtroom hearing. in which a decision is always made.)

3) the other important word in Rom. 10:17 is the word "word". 4487, Rhema and means "an utterance, narration, instruction." ( not the word euaggelion which is the Greek word for gospel)

4) the word "God" 2316 and means supreme deity.

So this is how rom. 10:17 should read, in relation to God and His word.
"So then Faith ( conviction and reliance upon God) comes ( added by the translators) by hearing, (a thing heard) a hearing ( a thing heard ) by the word (utterances, narration, and instruction) of God . (the supreme deity.)

It's when we try to make the word "faith" a verb and insert the mistranslated words believe, believer, and believing in this passage is error. And insert the word gospel for "word" in this passage which is error also. and try to use the word Lord or Jesus in the Passage instead of God. And yes , before you go ballistic on me, i understand all about the trinity and am in full understanding of it. But the passage uses the word "God" which specifically means "supreme deity".

So in my discernment, Rom. 10:17 is highlighting more of the call ( utterance, narration, instruction, of the Father to Christ when this was written. Not the gospel as we know it today. so even though we (should) have a better understanding of "the gospel" today, we need to be careful not to use it to support a bad understanding like the believe and recieve doctrine. IMU

So this is how rom. 10:17 should read, in relation to God and His word.
"So then Faith ( conviction and reliance upon God) comes (added by the translators) by hearing, (a thing heard) a hearing (a thing heard) by the word (utterances, narration, and instruction) of God . (the supreme deity.)

Agree that is the correct interpretation. And another Calvinist shibboleth bites the dust.

@Cameron143 is truly infamous for abusing this passage to suit his (nefarious?) purposes.

 

[GWH]

The spirit is how we understand things my understanding doesn't matter it only matters what the spirit says and in this way even a child could teach a full grown adult truth in a way he can understand.

Your understanding is the only understanding you have.
The need is to align our understanding with the Spirit's teaching,
which may be achieved as we learn more of GW and become mature.
but no one should ever claim to have perfect/absolute/infallible knowledge.
Humility is a virtue; papalism is sinful.

 

[Cameron143]

So this is how rom. 10:17 should read, in relation to God and His word.
"So then Faith ( conviction and reliance upon God) comes (added by the translators) by hearing, (a thing heard) a hearing (a thing heard) by the word (utterances, narration, and instruction) of God . (the supreme deity.)

Agree that is the correct interpretation. And another Calvinist shibboleth bites the dust.

@Cameron143 is truly infamous for abusing this passage to suit his (nefarious?) purposes.

RF

 

[Blain]

See #34,071.

Yes I agree with what you said very well said

 

[Blain]

Your understanding is the only understanding you have.
The need is to align our understanding with the Spirit's teaching,
which may be achieved as we learn more of GW and become mature.
but no one should ever claim to have perfect/absolute/infallible knowledge.
Humility is a virtue; papalism is sinful.

Exactly my understanding is the only understanding I have which is the entire point we are to not lean on our own understanding thus my understanding is contrary to the spirit

Now if understanding was given by the spirit then that is how you find truth but my own understanding? garbage useless null and void doesn't matter

 

[Jordon]

I don't meant to interrupt your discussion, I was just reading through some threads and I came across this post and saw you suggested the other member listen to the full sermon you linked.

I hesitated to listen to it, as I've never heard a sermon by Billy Graham before. I avoided him because some of the members of my Church included him in a list of "Televangelists", they claimed that all of them preach the same old prosperity gospel. Since I had already watched many of the popular TV evangelists, I thought Billy Graham would be the same.
But I decided to listen anyway and I was pleasantly surprised to find his message to be very encouraging and powerful.

I'm really glad I came across it, now I'm going to send it to those who discouraged me from taking any notice of Billy Graham.
This has made me realise that Church members don't always agree with each other. I don't expect all of us to agree on everything, but I don't think it's right to dismiss other Ministers, as being irrelevant, just because they have a different style of preaching.

I didn't want to side-track your discussion, so disregard my little rant and carry on. But I do want to thank you for sharing that sermon.

your very welcome

Glad you liked it, yep his name is just not bully Graham, I believe he was chosen

 

[cv5]

RF

Is that the best rebuttal you can muster?
Thanks to all those who have pitched in with their fine work so that the biblically illiterate nonsense that the Calvinist ilk proffer is being exposed.

 

[cv5]

I never said we are merely flesh now did I? and also will you stop with the slandering and throwing the term calvinist or calvinistic around like free candy because I am not a calvinist and I bet you that your accusations of it are not even true

Fine. Now you can plot a course correction out of the Calvinist Sargasso swamp.

 

[Jordon]

I never said we are merely flesh now did I? and also will you stop with the slandering and throwing the term calvinist or calvinistic around like free candy because I am not a calvinist and I bet you that your accusations of it are not even true

Ifs he's not going to listen to hundreds of requests from others he ain't going to listen to you, so basically his will says you Have no choice but to be called what I like, whilst preaching choice is paramount to faith and a good thing.

Only his choice isn't very good at all now is it.

 

[Blain]

Fine. Now you can plot a course correction out of the Calvinist Sargasso swamp.

Your spiteful remarks have been noted and they are not from the spirit of God you just keep digging your hole deeper all your remarks all your slander all your accusations your showing your true colors

 

[Blain]

Ifs he's not going to listen to hundreds of requests from others he ain't going to listen to you, so basically his will says you Have no choice but to be called what I like, whilst preaching choice is paramount to faith and a good thing.

Only his choice isn't very good at all now is it.

his words are being recorded so he will have to answer for them one day if he refuses to back off then that is on him but if he thinks for one second I would listen to someone so hateful he must be more blind than I am

 

[Cameron143]

Is that the best rebuttal you can muster?
Thanks to all those who have pitched in with their fine work so that the biblically illiterate nonsense that the Calvinist ilk proffer is being exposed.

Why would anyone want to discuss anything with you. You are obnoxious and crass. Perhaps you should spend less time concerning yourself with me and investigate what it is to walk in the Spirit.

 

[Jordon]

Fine. Now you can plot a course correction out of the Calvinist Sargasso swamp.

there's nothing actually wrong with the true Calvies

 

[Jordon]

his words are being recorded so he will have to answer for them one day if he refuses to back off then that is on him but if he thinks for one second I would listen to someone so hateful he must be more blind than I am

He's the old testament type who lives by the sword. He's a believer who believes the Jews are all still saved until there ready to accept Jesus, only the promise of God is a different view point in my book. The promise is to the house of Israel which is anybody.
many do take his road.

 

[Blain]

Why would anyone want to discuss anything with you. You are obnoxious and crass. Perhaps you should spend less time concerning yourself with me and investigate what it is to walk in the Spirit.

Thind of behavior is why I don't listen to him and he is lucky I am not a mod because it would not be tolerated in the slightest

Now if he were on the other forum I go to where I am actually a mod he would have been banned long ago