Is free will an illusion?

[Brother Bob]

J Jump;

EVIL SPIRIT (NT)
Acts, chapter 19
"12": So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.

"13": Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.

"14": And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so.

"15": And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?

"16": And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.


KJMatt.12

"43": When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.

"44": Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.

"45": Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.






GOOD SPIRIT (NT)
Corinthians, chapter 3"16":
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?


If you took it to mean all Christians in first post you misunderstood me. Sorry about that.

You can call it cherry pickin all you want, I call it Scripture.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Do you believe in original sin, and if so, what does that mean?

Joseph Botwinick

HP: I am not an Arminian, but I do love John Wesley on this point. Here is what he said. “The Scripture does not, that I remember, anywhere say, in express words, that the sin of Adam is imputed to his children; or, that the sins of believers are imputed to Christ; or, that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers: but the true meaning of these expressions is sufficiently found in several places of Scripture.” “Yet since these express words and phrases, of the imputation of Adam’s sin to us, of our sins to Christ, and of Christ’s righteousness to us, are not plainly written in Scripture we should not impose it on every Christian, to use these very expressions. Let every one take his liberty, either of confining himself to strictly Scriptural language, or manifesting his sense of these plain Scriptural doctrines, in words and phrases of his own.”

One thing we should all agree on is that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and are in need of a Savior. I personally feel that the only Scriptural definition of sin is; sin is the willful transgression of a known commandment of God.

 

[J. Jump]

if we do evil then our Spirit is evil and if we do good then our Spirit is good.

Bob there is no misunderstanding there. It's exactly what you wrote. You said "we." You consider yourself to be a Christian, so "we" would include you and other Christians. If "we" do evil then our spirit is evil, and if "we" (Bob and other Christians do good) then our spirit is good.

Once again Bob you take a passage of Scripture that talks about a certain individual or certain individuals and then apply it to all of mankind. Yes it is Scripture that you are misapplying.

Do you really believe all unsaved peolpe are demon possessed? Do you believe you were demon possessed as a lost person?

 

[Brother Bob]

JJ;
I use "we" in that post as a entire people but apparently I should of spelled it out for you.

I believe for sure that all unsaved are being led by an evil spirit for who every you lend your member to then you are the servant thereof.

I believe the saved are led by the Spirit of God, for as many as are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God.

Now, in the first post when I said we it is plain if you are doing evil you are not the saved and if you are led by a Good Spirit then you are the children of God

In order to be a Christian the evil spirit must be cast out and the Good Spirit come in.

I think I know more about my own post than you do. If you disagree with what has just been posted here then you are the cherry picker of the month.

 

[J. Jump]

Brother Bob you certainly know more about your post than I do that is for sure, but you need to type what you mean and mean what you type. When you use the word we that is an inclusive word that includes you and others. That's just the way the language works.

It continues to sound to me that you are trying to dig yourself out of a hole you created that is impossible to climb out of.

If you intended to not include yourself in the group of the evil doers then we is not the proper term to use.

But irregardless your doctrine is still not square with what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that a saved person can choose to walk in the flesh or can choose to walk in the Spirit.

In order to be a Christian the evil spirit must be cast out and the Good Spirit come in.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that all unsaved are indwelt by an evil spirit before they are saved.

I believe the saved are led by the Spirit of God

Bob so you believe the Holy Spirit leads a person to sin? Because we still do sin after we are saved, right? So the logical conclusion of your statement is that the Holy Spirit is the one that leads us to sin because we are led by the Holy Spirit if we are saved. Yeah that's definitely not in the Bible.

 

[Brother Bob]

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that all unsaved are indwelt by an evil spirit before they are saved.

So now we are going to take it individual by individual. God is no respect of person.

Bob so you believe the Holy Spirit leads a person to sin? Because we still do sin after we are saved, right? So the logical conclusion of your statement is that the Holy Spirit is the one that leads us to sin because we are led by the Holy Spirit if we are saved. Yeah that's definitely not in the Bible.

I stand by the Scripture "as many as are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God. Are you denying the Scripture now?

You are really not an English teacher so you should not try and take on the roll. We (as a people) is a proper way to use we.

 

[J. Jump]

We (as a people) is a proper way to use we.

Bob guess what you are a part of that people. You can dance around it all you want to, but the bottom line is any way you put it that is the wrong thing to say. If you didn't want to include yourself then you should have said that the unsaved are led by an evil spirit or they are led by an evil spirit. That would have taken you out of the mix.

So now we are going to take it individual by individual. God is no respect of person.

Exactly. Eternal salvation is an individual thing. It is not a corporate thing any longer. Your signaure says it all . . . whosoever will . . . that's individual.

Are you denying the Scripture now?

Nope not at all. When we are dying to self and allowing the Spirit to work in us we are definitely being led by the Spirit, walking in the Spirit, however you want to classify that. But when we sin it is an ABSOLUTE guarantee that we are not being led by the Spirit. Because that would mean if we were being Spirit led then the Spirit is a sinner. And we both know that there is ABSOLUTELY NO sin/imperfection at all within the Godhead, so I'm not sure where you are coming up with this stuff.

 

[J. Jump]

Here is webster's dictionary definition of we:

The plural nominative case of the pronoun of the first person; the word with which a person in speaking or writing denotes a number or company of which he is one, as the subject of an action expressed by a verb.

Here is dictionary.com's definition of we:

1. Used by the speaker or writer to indicate the speaker or writer along with another or others as the subject: We made it to the lecture hall on time. We are planning a trip to Arizona this winter.
   [*]Used to refer to people in general, including the speaker or writer: “How can we enter the professions and yet remain civilized human beings?” (Virginia Woolf).
2. Used instead of I, especially by a writer wishing to reduce or avoid a subjective tone.
3. Used instead of I, especially by an editorialist, in expressing the opinion or point of view of a publication's management.
4. Used instead of I by a sovereign in formal address to refer to himself or herself.
5. Used instead of you in direct address, especially to imply a patronizing camaraderie with the addressee: How are we feeling today?

 

[Brother Bob]

1. Used instead of you in direct address, especially to imply a patronizing camaraderie with the addressee: How are we feeling today? (Now this would be a silly remark if it included you.)

Main Entry: we
Pronunciation: 'wE
Function: pronoun, plural in construction
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English wE; akin to Old High German wir we, Sanskrit vayam
2 : 1[SIZE=-1]I[/SIZE] -- used by sovereigns; used by writers to keep an impersonal character

Maybe this will help?

We the United States are fighting in Iraq. ( I am not over there, maybe this will help also.)

You miss the whole point in which I used "we". I used it talking about mankind, which does include me I think.

Surely we (United States) didn't kill a bunch of innocent civilians?

 

[J. Jump]

We the United States are fighting in Iraq.

Guess what Bob you are a member of the United States so even though you are not personally there you are represented, because you are a member of the country.

Keep dancing.

 

[Brother Bob]

You the one with ants in your pants.
Guess what, I am a part of the human race also but don't make me a Christian.

Now lets see you dance, you shouldn't have any trouble.

 

[J. Jump]

Guess what, I am a part of the human race also but don't make me a Christian.

What are you talking about. No one has ever said that being part of the human race makes you a Christian. You are just making things up. Now it is time for me to leave this unproductive exchange.

 

[webdog]

Jim: Free will, from a theological perspective exists, but must be viewed from a proper perspective. It is enveloped in one of two sphere. It comes under the sovereignty of God, and includes God's permissive will. In this realm man has the will to make decisions, but excludes spiritual decisions. Fallen man lacks the faculty to make spiritual decisions. This only comes about after the touch of God in regeneration. Then he can make spiritual decisions.

HP: Jim, your free will is no free will at all. You are espousing freedom to do, but not freedom to will. That is mere sophistic argumentation. The relationship that is sustained between the will and the doing is that of necessity, not freedom. Man can ‘only do as one wills.’

Man is either free to form an intent, or he is not. Free will can only be predicated of a will being able to form an intent where contrary choice exists. Free will can only be predicated of the actual forming of the intents antecedent to the doing, not in the doing itself. You cannot say he has a free will yet he lacks the abilities to form a moral intent. Again, that is mere sophistry.

Free will surrounds the notion of contrary choice. If man cannot do anything other than what he does under the very same set of circumstances, the will cannot be said to be free. You have excluded spiritual decisions. In doing so you are denying freedom of our will and any part whatsoever in relationship to our destiny. I can think of no decisions that are more vital or important than spiritual decisions. What good is any decision if in fact those concerning my eternal destiny are made apart from my will? You have landed directly into the maelstrom of necessitated fatalism. When you deny our will as having anything to do with our spiritual decisions, you also make God the author of the sinners predestination of the damned. If fallen man lacks the faculties to make spiritual decisions, you destroy all moral accountability and all just praise or blame for any subsequent intents and actions.

These are true statements that we of necessity should consider in any and all discussions of free will. These issues cut to the chase, and simplify all the theological and philosophical jargon, and reduce the argument to understandable terms. If there is only one possible subsequent for a given antecedent, the matter is one of necessity, and not freedom. If there are two or more possible consequents for any given antecedent, the matter is said to be that of freedom. For instance. If one is standing close to a cliff, and someone comes from behind and forcefully overpowers the individual so as to eliminate any other possible consequent other than the man falling off the cliff, no freedom on the part of the man falling can be predicated. It is a matter of necessity. On the other hand, if the man running up from behind can either choose to shove the man off the cliff or stop and pull the man away from danger, that man is said to be able to exercise freedom of choice. Again freedom can only be predicated where for any given antecedent, there is more than one possible consequent. Any talk of freedom where there is only one possible consequent for any given antecedent, as in the case where you said that fallen man cannot make any spiritual decisions, to speak of freedom for that man in those circumstances is a mere sophism. There is no freedom where power, both in natural ability as well as possibility of contrary choice, does not exist.

Great post:thumbs:

The double talk espoused from calvinism always makes me dizzy. Choosing, giving the option to choose, and decision making have been instilled into man by God, so what is it to us what God has given us, or commanded us to do in regards to salvation? The redefining of plain phrases and terms has always amazed me.

 

[Brother Bob]

There goes another one.

 

[BobRyan]

Romans 8

5for those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the spirit, the things of the spirit.
6for the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the spirit is life and peace,
7because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Paul does not say “those who at one time were of the spirit are still setting their minds on the things of the spirit”. Paul is dealing with the present state of a lost person as contrasted to the present state of a saved person. He does not say here – that a presently saved person was never at one time lost.

He also does not say that a presently lost person was never at one time saved.

Paul argues that "salvation makes a real tangible difference in the life - the walk - of a Christian with regard to the law of God. He
argues that without the new birth / new covenant /empowered life of the spirit - man does not and can not be in subjection and
obedience to God's word - his law.

Notice there are two things going on here. Christ paid our debt, but then part-ii of the gospel he makes into new creations (2Cor 5) "old things are passed away and all things are become new".

He tells us we have been crucified with Christ "and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me" Gal 2:20. The old me could not please God or conform to his law - i could not according to Rom 8:7 - totally lost.

But now that is in contrast with the mind set on the spirit that "puts to death the sinful deeds of the flesh" - freed from condemnation and puting away sin is contrasted with slavery to sin and being under condemnation. The main body of Romans 8 2-15 deals with the very subject of obedience to God's law (impossible) pre-salvation vs freedom from slavery to rebellion that comes after salvation - obedience to God's law.

The law's requirement of death is fulfilled and it's requirement of obedience for those that walk not according to the flesh. What does it mean to walk not according to the flesh? John gives even more detail

1john 2:
4 the one who says, “I have come to know him,” and does not keep his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
5 but whoever keeps his word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in him:
6 the one who says he abides in him ought himself to walk in the same manner as he walked.

This is again a statement made in the present tense regarding the saved person making the claim to abide in Christ..

And so on through Romans 8 Paul is contrasting the rebellion in the walk of those without salvation vs the obedience in the life and walk of those that accept the gospel.

Romans 8

9however, you are not in the flesh but in the spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to him.
10if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.
11but if the spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead
dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies £through His Spirit who dwells in you.
12so then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh—

faith established the law - because it frees us from "obligation to sin" as "slaves to sin" and frees us from the obligation to
live according to the flesh. In fact we are under obligation to live according to the spirit. As Christ shows in matt 18 – under obligation to forgive others just as we have truly been forgiven freely and graciously by God himself.

Romans 8
13for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
14for all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
15for
you have not received a Spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a Spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “abba! Father!”
16the spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,
17and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with him.
...

24[ b]for in hope we have been saved, [/B]but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?

Romans 8

17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, [b]if indeed we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him[/b].
18 for i consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.

 

[Brother Bob]

The wordly person does not have the Spirit of God, but he does have a spirit. I never did believe the spirit was saved and the body lost or visa versa. No need to bother Bob Ryan, he said he was not coming back. :laugh: :laugh:

 

[BobRyan]

OK - well I am happy to "agree with those who remain"

 

[J. Jump]

It's amazing how so many of you take such a simple message and make it into such a confusing, twisting, turning, hilly, mountainous journey.

The simple message of grace is that if anyone will believe in the substitutionary death of Jesus and His shed blood they are saved.

That's it. Look I gave the message of eternal salvation in less than 25 words.

But if you ask some of you what must I do to be saved then you get this big ole laundry list of stuff.

You have to believe.
You have to continue to believe.
You have to repent.
You have to ask forgiveness.
You have to do good works.
You have to obey the 10 commandments.
You have to walk in the spirit.
You have to forgive others.

And I'm sure that I have left out several others. See how complicated that message is. Do you really at the end of your services or when you witness to folks about salvation do you really go into all that.

Do you tell someone they have to believe. Then they have to continue to believe until they die. And they have to be obedient. Then do you explain all the commandments to them all at one time so that they know what they will have to be obedient to from that day forward. Do you explain the gifts of the Spirit that allows them to do good works, so that they will understand how it is they even do good works in the process. And then do you explain how they are to obey the 10 commandments and that it goes even deeper than just the letter, but the heart of the matter. And then do you teach them how to walk in the Spirit. Then do you tell them that they have to forgive others before they can expect God to forgive them.

Boy you all must have three, four, five-hour alter calls. That's a load right there.

If a five-year-old little boy or little girl comes to you do you really sit down and explain that all to them in a matter of a few minutes and then say okay do you really want to be saved now?

And yet the Bible says believe (one-time event) by faith in Jesus' death and shed blood and you will be saved. There is no doubt about it. Done deal. End of conversation. Ephesians 2:8-9, Acts 16:30-31

I'll stick with the simple message of the Bible. It's a message so simple even children can come to Jesus for salvation.

 

[Brother Bob]

We don't have to, if they are "born again" their heart of stone is removed and they are given a heart of flesh and are led by the Spirit which makes them the sons of God. We for one don't baptize 5 year olds. Now ain't that nice.:wavey:

substitutionary death of Jesus. First place I don't think that is a word and second place wasn't no substitution to it He really died.


I took him at his word Bob

 

[J. Jump]

Bob they don't automatically know these things. These are things that have to be taught over time, but according to you if they don't have this right off the bat they aren't saved. Well I'm sorry, but you just aren't teaching Scripture.

Websters Dictionary:
SUBSTITUTIONARY

Adjective

1. Of or pertaining to substitution; substitutional.

Dictionary.com:

sub

sti·tu

tion·ar

y adj.

second place wasn't no substitution to it He really died.

His death was real. He died so that saved individuals don't have to die. That's called a substitutionary death. Him dying in my place so that I don't have to die. Come on BrotherBob.