Where is freewill in the bible?

[Repent1]

Greetings borntorebel,

God

[Repent1]

Greetings borntorebel,

Praying the peace and joy of Christ unto you

[My testimony]

Born, it seems to me that your chosen screen name

[Repent1]

Cont......

[You said quoting me]

God should give an account to himself for himself and judge himself for all of the errors he caused us to do. (Bad God)

"Shall the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'Why hast thou made me thus?'" Rom. 9:20 KJV. Sounds very similar to what you just said.

[My testimony]

Not so, you said

[borntorebel]

Hi Ron,

My apology if this response seems a little insensitive, but as I re-read your posts I can tell you are a man well acquainted with that word.

I assume you are referring to the word insensitive. Where was I insensitive? My intent is never to be insensitive.

You introduce the subject of freewill to the board and then you erroneously state the word is not in Scripture (examples provided which you state you had not seen before - hello). Then you insist a definition be found outside of Scripture "in order to know what 'freewill' means". At this point you appeal to the philosophy of man (Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language). You then digress to your own rhetorical question and answer it on behalf of all Christians,

"Now, can any christian accept that definition? NO!”

Do you speak for all Christians? I don’t think so.

Yes, I made a mistake and you corrected it and I thanked you for that (if I didn't, then thank you). When I looked up freewill, I saw all the references to offerings and didn't look at all of the scriptures in my Strong's. Concerning my use of Webster's, I was referring to one of the standards for the English language. It’s not a philosophy. I used that to show the meaning of the word in our culture. When part of the definition is that “…not simply determined by physical or DIVINE forces”, then yes I believe Christians shouldn’t use this word since it denies that God intervenes with His creation. That is a basic tenet of the Christian faith. I don’t speak for all Christians, but that is a basic belief that one must have to be a Christian, so if they accept, they aren’t Christian.

You again appeal to the philosophy of man with the “first rule of the universe" theory".

Edited November 6, 2004 by borntorebel

[borntorebel]

[iI Corinthians 5:19]

To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

[John 1:1]

In the beginning was the Word (Christ), and the Word (Christ) was with God, and the Word (Christ) was God.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward God, and God was the Word" (John 1:1). (This is the proper order of the Greek words). Jesus is the Logos or Spokesman of God.

Yes, Jesus was fully God and fully man, I have never denied that fact. Are you saying that God the Father suffered through the crucifixion? That's patripssianism, which was debunked as a heretical teaching by the early church. Jesus is God, yet God the Father is greater than Jesus, and Jesus does nothing unless God the Father tells him to. Jesus also came OUT from the Father. Look at my post about the trinity under apologetics on this MB.

"Who [Jesus Christ] is the Image of the invisible God, Firstborn of every creature, for in Him is ALL CREATED, that in the heavens and that on the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or lordships, or sovereignties, or authorities, all is created THROUGH Him and FOR Him, and He is BEFORE all, and all has its cohesion in Him" Col. 14-17.

Jesus is the IMAGE of the invisible God. Not my words, but those of Paul. (Yes, He is God). This is important for the above mentioned heresy.

[My testimony]

It is my testimony, that God created the flesh of Jesus, God then used that flesh for a covering, so that he might once again enter into the earth to reconcile mankind back unto himself. That’s one of the reasons why the Jews sought to kill Jesus because he said in so many words that he was God:

Jesus NEVER said He was God. Paul said He (Christ) thought it not pillaging (taking by force or plundering) to be equal with God. We must look at ALL the references to God and Jesus concerning their relationship.

Like I said before, we can debate the relationship between God and Jesus on the apologetics board where I've posted.

May God's power and peace be with you,

Ron

[larryt]

[iI Corinthians 5:19]

To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

[John 1:1]

In the beginning was the Word (Christ), and the Word (Christ) was with God, and the Word (Christ) was God.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward God, and God was the Word" (John 1:1). (This is the proper order of the Greek words). Jesus is the Logos or Spokesman of God.

Yes, Jesus was fully God and fully man, I have never denied that fact. Are you saying that God the Father suffered through the crucifixion? That's patripssianism, which was debunked as a heretical teaching by the early church. Jesus is God, yet God the Father is greater than Jesus, and Jesus does nothing unless God the Father tells him to. Jesus also came OUT from the Father. Look at my post about the trinity under apologetics on this MB.

"Who [Jesus Christ] is the Image of the invisible God, Firstborn of every creature, for in Him is ALL CREATED, that in the heavens and that on the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or lordships, or sovereignties, or authorities, all is created THROUGH Him and FOR Him, and He is BEFORE all, and all has its cohesion in Him" Col. 14-17.

Jesus is the IMAGE of the invisible God. Not my words, but those of Paul. (Yes, He is God). This is important for the above mentioned heresy.

[My testimony]

It is my testimony, that God created the flesh of Jesus, God then used that flesh for a covering, so that he might once again enter into the earth to reconcile mankind back unto himself. That

[borntorebel]

[My testimony]

Born, it seems to me that your chosen screen name “rebel” is a testimony to freewill, in itself.

[Rebel]:

To resist (remain firm against the actions, effects, or force of; withstand; to keep from giving in to or enjoying) or defy (To refuse or fail to obey) an authority or a generally accepted convention.

How does strong define the word rebel?

It doesn't matter what Strong's says, I'm not speaking in Greek or Hebrew. Interesting when people can't refute the truth, they resort to sacrcasm. Rebelling isn't a testimony to freewill, it's a testimony to our God given ability to make choices. I rebel because (notice that CAUSE) I don't accept things as true just because a so-called authority says it is. I follow the example of the Bereans whom Paul called noble. I investigate what I hear and compare it to God's word. If it passes that test, fine. If not, it's a manmade teaching, not from God.

[You said]

It is impossible to make a choice without a cause. Something causes every choice we make.

[My testimony]

This is an excellent statement, every choice that we make related to the things of God, is because we love God or because we don’t.

[You said]

The manmade fable that we can make choices without cause

[My testimony]

I’m witnessing you making freewill choices right here in your postings, you are choosing which things you will believe and which things you choose not to believe.

I never said related only to the things of God. Every choice we make about everything in our lives is caused. I choose to believe what I believe beCAUSE I seek God's truth. You still haven't understood what I'm saying. I suggest you go back and read what I have posted to fully understand what I'm saying.

[You said]

"No man can come to me unless the Father which has sent me draw him...no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." Jn. 6:44, 65. Those are Jesus' words, not mine.

[My testimony]

The verse says that no man can come (advance toward) to me unless the Father which has sent me draw (attract) him. I don’t deny that this is the process put in place by God, but the rest of the procedure is the receiving (accepting) of Christ, God is drawing all men, but not all men/woman are responding (If I be lifted from the earth I will draw [all] men unto me).

Once again you change God's word. The Greek word translated into the English word 'draw' in this verse doesn't mean 'attract'. It means 'drag'. If you don't like it, you'll have to argue with God. He chose to use that word. Also, the word "all" that you put in brackets is properly translated. Bet you don't like that either, since you put it in brackets. Why do you change God's word? Haven't you read how He feels about that?

Your coming to Christ is contingent on a person accepting as true (believing) the engrafted word of God. If a person doesn’t believe, (and belief and unbelief are by choice in your heart), God is not in you:

No, coming to Christ is contingent on God giving you the opportunity. I believe God's word, not man's false teachings.

[John 3:17-21]

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19 And this is the condemnation, that light (truth) is come into the world, and men loved darkness (ignorance) (this word doesn't mean ignorance, it means darkness. stop adding to and twisting God's word.) rather than light (truth), because their deeds were evil.

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light (truth), neither cometh to the light (truth), lest his deeds should be reproved (criticized) .

21 but he that doeth truth cometh to the light (truth), that his deeds may be made manifest (visible), that they are wrought (formed) in God.

[My question]

Are you calling God a liar?

No, I would use that to refer to the person who wrote that statement.

[You said]

For the word draw: Strong's #1448 - eggizo - from #1451; to make near, i.e., (reflex.) appraoch.

[My question]

What do you think that the word approach means?

Approach: To come or go near or nearer to

Come: To move or be brought to a particular position

Move: To cause to progress or advance

Maybe I’m slow, not having my Strong’s and all, but it It looks to me that the meanings are the same,; to move toward Christ. (Maybe Webster went to Strong).

I don't know what you're trying to say here. That isn't the Greek word used in Jn. 6:44. Concerning the 'respecter of persons' stuff, I agree God isn't a respecter of person's, he doesn't show partiality according to who you are or what you believe or how many good works you do. Yet God still CHOOSES us, we don't choose Him.

May God's peace and power be with you,

Ron