Conference yukon::christian_v7

	So Mark, He won't force Himself on us (which I believe is true) to come
to Him, but He did when it came to writing the Bible. Have I got this right?


Glen

>	So Mark, He won't force Himself on us (which I believe is true) to come
>to Him, but He did when it came to writing the Bible. Have I got this right?

Not at all.  He didn't force the writers to write as if in a trance or
something.  It was free will but led by the Spirit.  When these two are
in concert, there is no conflict and the Bible remains God-breathed.

(Amazing.)

MM

| <<< Note 637.55 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>


| Not at all.  He didn't force the writers to write as if in a trance or
| something.  It was free will but led by the Spirit.  When these two are
| in concert, there is no conflict and the Bible remains God-breathed.

	God-breathed, human free will = Bible. Have I got this right Mark?


Glen

    .60
    
    I'm not Mark, but NO you do not have it complete you are missing the
    most important piece/peace...
    
    human free will + the Holy Spirit = God-breathed Bible
    
    

    When free will and the spirit are in Concert to bring humanity to God,
    there is also no conflict.  Humanity remains God-breathed.
    
                                       Patricia

    >God-breathed, human free will = Bible. Have I got this right Mark?
    
    Haven't we been down this path before?  If God is breathing inspiration
    into man and man submits his free will completely to God, then God can
    completely use that person as a vessel.  I believe this to be the case
    in scripture.  Its only when that free will is used in pursuit of the
    flesh that God's message gets diluted.  Romans 6 talks about presenting
    our members to Him as instruments of righteousness which results in
    santification.  Romans 8 talks about living according to the Spirit
    instead of the flesh.  I see no conflict what-so-ever in God using a
    person who has submitted his will totally to God to accomplish His
    purpose in writing down His inerrant Word.  
    
    Now before we go too far, since the conference guidelines state that
    the inspired word of God is the basis for our discussions, I suggest
    that any further dialog on this subject be taken off line.
    
    Bing

    
    Can some one give a biblical definition of free will?? I'm not sure
    what it TRULY means??
    
    Thanks
    Bruce
    

    .64
    
    free will - right to choose or reject God

    
    i don't think there is a biblical definition of free will.  it is a
    construct of men based upon an erroneous interpretation of Scripture.
    
    jeff

    Could you please elaborate a little there, Jeff?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Rebecca

    
    i think it is straightforward that there is no *definition* of free
    will in the Bible, since it is not a dictionary.  this much is obvious.
    
    the belief that unregenerate man (who is *DEAD* in trespasses and sin)
    can *freely choose* Christ is illogical and unbiblical.  no one can
    choose Christ except those that have been *enabled* by the Holy Spirit
    to do so.
    
    i challenge each of you to remember your conversion.  to what extent
    were you responsible for it?
    
    jeff
    
    

	However, Jeff, one can refuse to accept Him.

	Karen

>    i challenge each of you to remember your conversion.  to what extent
>    were you responsible for it?
    
    I confessed him as Lord and Savior with my mouth.
    
Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in
thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
    
Romans 10:10
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth
confession is made unto salvation.
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 637.63 by ODIXIE::HUNT >>>


| >God-breathed, human free will = Bible. Have I got this right Mark?

| Haven't we been down this path before? If God is breathing inspiration into 
| man and man submits his free will completely to God, then God can completely 
| use that person as a vessel.  

	I guess I consider what you wrote more divine intervention than
inspired. Inspired to *me* means more to get someone emotionally up, or
to get them to do start something. Doesn't mean they will do it right,
just that they have been inspired to do X or Y.  


Glen

>    the belief that unregenerate man (who is *DEAD* in trespasses and sin)
>    can *freely choose* Christ is illogical and unbiblical.  no one can
>    choose Christ except those that have been *enabled* by the Holy Spirit
>    to do so.

However, the belief that God does not, through the Holy Spirit, pour out
his grace on all mankind, is also illogical and unbiblical.

God has reached out in love to all the world, to every person who has
ever lived, and called them to follow him.  No one can do this without
God's grace, but God's grace is a free gift, given to all.

/john

      Hi,
    
        I've only read as far as .5, but lets elaborate on free
        will as pertains that will which inspiration is working
        through.
    
        It is free will which has freely 'willed' to submit entirely
        to God.  I contend that when any of the scriptures were written
        by a person, that person CHOSE with his free will to submit his
        will to the Lord.  Thus it is that the Lord was permitted to
        speak through that channel without obstruction.
    
        The disconnect I see is that free will implies noninspiration.
        This is not true.  If the free will is truly SUBMITTED, non-
        inspiration cannot possibly result for free will chose to allow
        the will of God to work through the channel without resistance.
         
        Free will which choses to not submit cannot but result in non-
        inspiration.  Free will perfectly submitted to the will of God
        must result in inspiration and only inspiration.  Its God working
        through the channel!!
    
                                                  Tony
                             

RE:     <<< Note 641.14 by BIGQ::SILVA "Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box!" >>>


>| Haven't we been down this path before? If God is breathing inspiration into 
>| man and man submits his free will completely to God, then God can completely 
>| use that person as a vessel.  

>	I guess I consider what you wrote more divine intervention than
>inspired. Inspired to *me* means more to get someone emotionally up, or
>to get them to do start something. Doesn't mean they will do it right,
>just that they have been inspired to do X or Y.  


I suspect that were you to consider the greek words involved your definition
*might* change.



Jim

>However, the belief that God does not, through the Holy Spirit, pour out
>his grace on all mankind, is also illogical and unbiblical.
    
    It is not.  there are enough biblical statements to the contrary to
    argue this. 

>God has reached out in love to all the world, to every person who has
>ever lived, and called them to follow him.  
    
    i disagree.
    
    jeff

    Why is it that John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the WORLD that He gave
    His begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but
    have eternal life.", if His design for salvation only included part of
    the world?
    
    In Christ,
    
    Bing

    
    what does "world" mean?
    
    jeff

    in addition to yesterday's Romans 10:9-10 on confessing with YOUR
    mouth...
    
I John 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for
the sins of the whole world.

I John 4:9-10
In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his
only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son
to be the propitiation for our sins.
    
Hebrews 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering
of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should
taste death for every man.

Romans 10:13
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Ephesians 1:7
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,
according to the riches of his grace:

I Peter 1:18-19
Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as
silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your
fathers;
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without
spot:

    Re: I John 2:2
    
    what is "whole world"?
    
    Re: Hebrews 2:9
    
    what is "for every man"?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    And lets not forget...
    
    "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is
    patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come
    to repentance."
    				2 Peter 3:9

    As for the "world", it seems pretty inclusive: 
    
         Acts 17:30 -> "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but
         now commands all men everywhere to repent"
    
         2 Pet. 3:9 -> "The Lord is ... not willing that any should perish
         but that all should come to repentance."
    
    I think the point is that although God's call has gone out to everyone,
    not everyone will accept the call. At least that's my understanding of
    the Scriptures; I'm obviously not speaking for anyone else.
    
    	BD�

    I'm not sure exactly what you are asking, so please let me know if this
    addresses your question okay.  
    
    I think that by "world", all of creation is meant - what God made, 
    including humanity.   In the begining, after God finished the work of 
    creation, He rested and contemplated what He had made, and considered it 
    to be "good".  I think He was pleased and happy with creation.  Yet now,
    all of creation has been corrupted and hurt by sin entering the world,
    and as result is subject to decay and death.

    I think all creation is to be redeemed and restored through the work of 
    Yeshua (Jesus).  The first step was completed by His coming as the Lamb 
    for Atonement, and by his resurrection.  He will come again to make all 
    things new, and grant eternal life.

    I don't think this implies that every individual will receive eternal life,
    but only those who have turned to God and His sacrifice for atonement - 
    Yeshua (Jesus) ha Moshiach (the Messiah).  But everyone could receive it,
    if they repented and turned to God.

    There is the argument between Calvinist and Wesleyan doctrine regarding
    predestination versus the human ability to choose for God without God's
    intervention (also know as free will).  After struggling with this for
    several years, I finally have just come to accept that truth means both 
    that God is sovereign and draws people to Him - He knows, He chooses,
    He selects, AND that God is just and fair, AND that humans are responsible
    for their choices (indicating that we have true choice or free will)!  
    From our vantage point there seems to be a paradox between these things, 
    but in the infinate God, somehow these things meet and are in harmony.

    Leslie

RE:         <<< Note 641.26 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

       
   > Now if God does not wish for any to persish, and God's Love is the most
   > powerful force in the Universe, how could one sheep be lost forever?
    

    That He doesn't "wish" for any to perish indicates that some may indeed
    perish against His wishes.  I may not wish for my kids to smoke or drink,
    however they may chose to go against my wishes, for example.


    
>    "We are all saved by the Faith "of" Jesus!  Not Faith in Jesus as is
>    often interpreted, but the Faith "of" Jesus!
    
 
   Perhaps you could share your reference?




Jim

    >"The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is
    >patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come
    >to repentance."
    >				2 Peter 3:9
    
    I knew there was a reason I should have posted the next few verses
    immediately following 2 Pet 3:9.  Below are verses 10-16 from 2 Peter:
    
    But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens
    will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with
    intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.  Since all
    these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought
    you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the
    coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be
    destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! 
    But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new
    earth, in which righteousness dwells.  Therefore, beloved, since you
    look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace,
    spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord to be
    salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the
    wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in
    them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand,
    which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of
    the Scriptures, to their own distruction.
    
    				2 Peter 3:10-16
    

>    coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be
>    destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! 
    
    nuclear fusion

	And let's not forget the greatest free will listed in the Bible:

                              1Corinthians 7:25

    re .30 Please post the text for the benefit of others.
    
    "Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an
    opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy."
    				1 Cor 7:25
    
    And your point being?
    
    Paul specifically states in this case that this is his opinion.  When he 
    doesn't specifically say so he HAS gotten a specific word from the Lord
    for others as well as himself.
    
    In Christ,
    
    Bing
    

 Even if it is Paul's opinion:

 A) does it contradict scripture?

 B) considering the situation in Corinth at the time it is certainly sound
    advice.




 Jim

   

When Paul specifies that something is his own opinion, it does not
mean that it is not an inspired opinion and thus the infallible
word of God.

He is simply saying that Jesus didn't himself say this while he was
walking the earth.

It remains God-breathed, as do all parts of the canon of scripture.

/john

	Time to beat the dead horse again, huh ?

Dead horse or Living Word?

    I think the dead horse comment was in regard to .30, which has been
    discussed extensively before.
    
    Bing

    
    Some dead horses just won't stay dead.  It's the nature of 
    us to continue wrangling over the mysteries or paradoxes 
    of God, I guess.
    
    Fortunately, God does not require understanding of all things from us.   
    
    Otto

| <<< Note 641.31 by ODIXIE::HUNT >>>

| And your point being?

	Point being is that this is a major human "free will" statement in the 
Bible of God's Word.


Glen

| <<< Note 641.32 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>



| Even if it is Paul's opinion:
| A) does it contradict scripture?
| B) considering the situation in Corinth at the time it is certainly sound
| advice.


	I guess if you look at it from the standpoint, does a human opinion
help validify the Bible's claim that it is the Word of God? If your answer is
yes, how does it do that? If it is no, well, we won't be discussing that here.


Glen

It's a divinely inspired opinion, Glen.

| <<< Note 641.33 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>



| When Paul specifies that something is his own opinion, it does not mean that 
| it is not an inspired opinion and thus the infallible word of God.

	You can conclude all that from someone stating his opinion? Even after
he states it is not from God. How did you come to that conclusion John?

| He is simply saying that Jesus didn't himself say this while he was
| walking the earth.

	I suppose it depends on which version of the Bible you read. Some
mention God, not Jesus. 

| It remains God-breathed, as do all parts of the canon of scripture.

	So the premise says.

| <<< Note 641.40 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>



| It's a divinely inspired opinion, Glen.



	And you came to that conclusion because.....

 .39


 we've been down that path so many times in so many places that I don't care
 to go down it again.




 Jim

    You will note also that Paul doesn't say his opinion doesn't line up
    with God's will for this particular situation.  Rather Paul says he had
    no COMMAND from the Lord for that situation.  His opinion was one that
    had been found by God's mercy to be trustworthy.  His opinion was
    formulated through his relationship with the Lord.
    
    The passage is not a command to single folks, rather it is words of
    wisdom that any single person considering marriage would be wise to
    take into consideration (ie marriage is demanding at times).
    
    In Him,
    
    Bing 

Glen, I will not, by answering your circular reasoning for the millionth
time, help you create a platform to once again disparage the Word of God in
this conference.  We have given you every chance, we have put up with your
divisiveness on this issue not once or twice but hundreds of times.  ENOUGH
IS ENOUGH has been said dozens of times.  And yet it continues and continues
and continues and continues.  It appears that you are incapable of choosing
not to be devisive on this.  

Perhaps it is time to approach this problem from a different direction.  Glen
can't seem to change, or doesn't want to change.  But WE can change.  Every
time Glen puts out the bait of denigrating God's Word, someone takes it. 
I've taken it myself many a time.  And off we go on yet another 20-note
rathole devoted to Glen's desperate desire to discredit the Bible.  If,
however, the bait were to be just left untouched, or perhaps politely buried,
Glen would then have no platform to continue to rave against the Word.  In
light of Titus 3:9-11, I encourage others to simply not respond any more to
Glen's baiting of those who depend on God's Word.  If his comments just fall
on dead air, perhaps they will finally stop.

Paul

"But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels
about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.  Warn a divisive
person once, and then warn him a second time.  After that, have nothing to do
with him.  You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is
self-condemned."
						Titus 3:9-11, NIV

It is also interesting to note (for those knowing the inspiration of the 
scriptures), that in the early days of the church, when the epistles were 
being written, amongst the plenty of false claims going round some would 
claim their own ideas as being unrecorded statements of the LORD Jesus.  
This was a reason why Paul so carefully distinguished between His sources
on this topic - related from the LORD Jesus' ministry, or received directly 
by inspiration from the Holy Spirit.

Unless you look, with a heart open to the LORD, at the cross reference
sources of the aspects recorded by Jesus, and consider them carefully in 
context, the explanations of Paul's sources will never speak beyond the 
limitations of human understanding.

								Andrew

>    the belief that unregenerate man (who is *DEAD* in trespasses and sin)
>    can *freely choose* Christ is illogical and unbiblical.  no one can
>    choose Christ except those that have been *enabled* by the Holy Spirit
>    to do so.
>    
>    i challenge each of you to remember your conversion.  to what extent
>    were you responsible for it?

The meaning of life is RELATIONSHIP.  God created us to love Him and enjoy
Him forever.  It takes TWO parties to have a relationship.  Therefore, I
was responsible for answering the call - or rejecting it.  I was not forced 
into my relationship with God.

MM

| <<< Note 641.44 by ODIXIE::HUNT >>>


| You will note also that Paul doesn't say his opinion doesn't line up with 
| God's will for this particular situation.  

	Bing, you're right, it does not say this. But answer this if you will,
can a person state that they are going to say something NOT from God in a book
about His Word and have it still remain as the claim states? (only answer if
you agree. to say no is not allowed)

| Rather Paul says he had no COMMAND from the Lord for that situation. 

	Kind of strange when it's in a book about God's Word.

| His opinion was one that had been found by God's mercy to be trustworthy. His 
| opinion was formulated through his relationship with the Lord.

	I agree with you on this. But it is still his opinion in a book about
God's Word, is it not?

| The passage is not a command to single folks, rather it is words of wisdom 
| that any single person considering marriage would be wise to take into 
| consideration (ie marriage is demanding at times).

	I agree with you on this. But it is still his opinion in a book about
God's Word, is it not?



Glen

Glen, 

� But it is still his opinion in a book about God's Word, is it not? 

No.  This has been explained to you many times.  In several forums.  You
haven't said you didn't understand or accept the explanation, you have just
repeated your original assumption elsewhere, or later in the same place. 
Go back and re-read what you've been told before, and then say what you
can't understand about it.  Then you might be able to progress instead of
going round in circles, trying to take everyone else round with you each
time. 

								Andrew 

	Andrew, I'm not discussing the validity of the words for sound advice.
That is irrelavent. What is on the table is a human putting his own opinion in
a book that claims it's the inerrant Word of God. Even *I* could give good
advice. But I wouldn't claim that the advice came from me. 


Glen

Glen,

Quit going round in circles.  You have totally and repeatedly misunderstood
that both sides of Paul's response were from divine inspiration.  Remember 
that 'the Lord' in those verses refers to the word of mouth teaching of 
Jesus on earth.  That is the distinction the is trying to make.  Not that 
half the advice is uninspired.

						Andrew

	Andrew, is there Scripture to back the claim of divinely inspired?


Glen

II Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

II Timothy 3:17
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Peter talks about Paul's writings.  Note that Peter refers to ALL of PAUL'S
WRITINGS AS SCRIPTURE.  



2Peter 3:15  And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; 
even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him 
hath written unto you; 

2Peter 3:16  As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; 
in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned 
and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own 
destruction. 

    Circles and circular discussions have lost its flavor for me.  If one
    wishes to bang their head in this discussion go ahead, but for me I
    agree with Paul Weiss.

    This topic has taken a turn from what I thought it was going to be--
    that is predestination vs free will in regards to salvation.  I agree
    with Paul's earlier note and would rather see this note be used to
    discuss the predestination/free will topic (although I've added all
    that I'm going to on either).
    
    Bing

      re: .47
    
      Hi Mark,
    
        What you quoted from gets into something I've thought about
        lately.
    
        What 'brings about' the initial (as in very first) faith 
        response?  Is that in and of itself a rightful act?  Does
        that mean that I had at least a smidgeon's worth of righteoussness
        to begin with?  
    
        (I don't for a second believe that last thing I said.)
    
        I have come to the conclusion that the how of the initial faith 
        response is unfathomable.  I am totally comfortable with this
        posture of mine (that I can't fathom it).
    
        The other thing I cannot fathom is the coexistence of free
        will/foreknowledge, i.e. "How can God know I will do this thing
        in 5 minutes and how can I choose not to do it?"
    
        These are two things I am totally comfortable not being able 
        to fathom!!
    
                                                       Tony

>        What 'brings about' the initial (as in very first) faith 
>        response?  Is that in and of itself a rightful act?  Does
>        that mean that I had at least a smidgeon's worth of righteoussness
>        to begin with?  

Can I rephrase this to ask, "What attracts God to us to offer a relationship?"
Would this be an accurate summation?

Whether we have righteousness or not prior to the initial invitation because
we're talking about our Maker.  In other words, he could create "righteousness"
in us and yet never invite us into a relationship, as absurd as that sounds.

We know (yet do not fully understand) that *God loves us*.  God loves
each and every one of us *individually*.  What is it that attracts God,
that causes Him to love us?  The One who made us ought to know, and I 
don't even think we *have* to understand it to know it.  In this sense
we agree and are comfortable in not knowing/cannot fathom it.

As for free will and foreknowledge, I think they intersect between the
planes of time and timelessness.  Our existence is in time and so that is
our basis for reference and fathoming timelessness is impossible.  (I never
read Flatlanders, but I understood the theme to show that beings on a
two-dimensional plane could not understand the interaction of a 
three-dimensional being.  I see the same dynamics at work with regard to
free will (on our two-deminsional plane) and foreknowledge (three-demensions).

Mark

    I lean towards the predestination theology in my thinking, yet I 
    have elements where I think that this could yet be another issue in the
    bible where both extremes can co-exist and be equally true at the same
    time.  The bible is full of examples - such has being absolutely
    forgiven and yet at the same time having to bear the full consequences
    of your sin.  A good book on the predestination issue is Choosing God
    by R C Sproul.  
    
    For those who are strongly free will consider:
    
    For a sinful man, who is unredeemed - every thought and desire is of
    the flesh - and is bent toward evil.  How is there any way that he
    would choose of the things of God except that God put that desire in
    him?  How can I make any Godly choice apart from God?  If a man is 
    unredeemed and in Satan's dominion - how is there any way where he is
    freed except that God has freed him.  There is strong evidence from 
    Ephesians that we are predestined - and we have been chosen by God. 
    
    There is also strong evidence concerning free will - so much clear 
    indication that God does not interfere with our will 
    
    as do many of you the idea of predestination is certainly something
    that surely puts the fear of God in you - and this is greater than I 
    alone can grasp.  So that is why I am seeking scripture on this issue. 
    
    So,
    
    Is predestination absolutely truth according to God's word - or is
    free-will - or is coexistance of both.  Please answer using 
    scripture.  
    Thanks
    
    Rick Nickles
    

   You might want to look at topic 641 also.

   Leslie

    Appropriate notes related to this topic moved here for consistency.
    
    

    Hello
    
    For some reason I have been in the book of Galatians for a few months
    (I guess I haven't received or obeyed all that God has for me in this
    book...)  Anyway I was meditating upon Galatians 4:1-7 and I thought
    this passage had special relvance to the issue of pre-destination and
    free will...  
    
    take a look and meditate upon this 
    
    Rick 
    

    Hmm, try this one with a few different versions.  It changes.

    RE: .63
    
    :-)
    
    If the issues were so easily resolved by seven verses.
    
    Actually, there's context for the referenced passage.  I think chapters
    3, 4 and 5 must at least be read together before meditating on just a
    few verses.

Galatians 4:1  Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth 
nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; 

  2  But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the 
father. 

  3  Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of 
the world: 

  4  But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made 
of a woman, made under the law, 

  5  To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the 
adoption of sons. 

  6  And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into 
your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 

  7  Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an 
heir of God through Christ.