Posted on 06/25/2013 3:08:30 AM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
“You are a Calvinist...right???”
I should have put a /s, since obviously I like a way of thinking that is logical. If that makes me a Calvinist, I guess so!
“Free will”
... is not something that exists. That should have been how your sentence ended.
” but the will expressing itself.”
Which will? The will of the regenerate? Or the will of the children of wrath?
Eph 2:1-3 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; (2) Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: (3) Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
1 Corinthians 7:37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will,
The same word as this "will":
Luke 22:42 42 Saying , Father, if thou be willing , remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done .
Note, of course, in Paul's 1co7:37 verse the assumption that humans can be responsible for their will.
“Note, of course, in Paul’s 1co7:37 verse the assumption that humans can be responsible for their will.”
You erased the latter part of the verse, and took it out of its context. This is not in the context of salvation, or even that a man has will over himself. The “will” spoken of is his power over his own daughter, on whether or not he will give her to marriage.
1Co 7:33-38 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. (34) There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. (35) And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction. (36) But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. (37) Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. (38) So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.
As Gill explains:
“’but hath power over his own will’— his daughter’s will being the same with his, and she entirely consenting to live a single life; otherwise he would have no power of acting as he pleased in such a case:”
From the WWS commentary:
“Rev., as touching his own will. The repetition of his own emphasizes the fact that the disposal of the daughter lay wholly in the parent’s power. Among the Greeks and Romans the choice of a wife was rarely grounded upon affection. In many cases the father chose for his son a wife whom the latter had never seen, or compelled him to marry for the sake of checking his extravagances.”
I bet you did a search for “will” and “necessity” on Biblegateway and took this out willy nilly without checking the context. I don’t know why you removed part of the verse either.
Oops, forgot to ping you to my reply to his absurdly out of context quotation.
Friendliness promotes unity.
It is not out of context. It is a statement defining the meaning of "will" within the bible. It really matters not if it is about salvation or about marriage. It is no different than "the conscience", another part of a human, or even of a leg or an arm, a physical part of a human.
The bible is giving you a lesson, and part of that lesson is the identification of "the will".
I might point out, though, that you were arguing against the very existence of free will. And here, the Apostle Paul clearly indicates one controlling his own will.
BTW, one doesn't "erase". One copy/pastes.
“It really matters not if it is about salvation or about marriage”
Yes it does, because if its about marrying your daughter off and not about freedom of will, then the “will” here is his authority as a parent. The “necessity” and the “compulsion” here are as follows:
From Barnes commentary:
“Having no necessity - Where there is nothing in her disposition or inclination that would make marriage necessary, or when there is no “engagement or obligation” that would be violated if she did not marry.”
The PNT commentary:
“He that standeth steadfast . . having no necessity. If no need makes marriage necessary, and the purpose that she remain unmarried continues steadfast, he does well to let her remain so. To choose either course is well, but the last is the better, where circumstances permit (1Co_7:38), on account of the “distress” (1Co_7:26).”
The JFB commentary:
“having no necessity — arising from the natural inclinations of the daughter.”
Geneva commentary:
“That the weakness of his daughter does not force him, or any other matter, that that he may safely still keep her a virgin.”
If what you say is true, then parents have free-will over salvation, but daughters do not.
“Friendliness promotes unity.”
Who said I wasn’t being friendly? If you don’t want me to call your arguments absurd, don’t make absurd arguments.
Also, again, it makes not a whit of difference if the word is used in any context. It is still indicative of the way the word is used and its meaning.
It is no different than looking at various verses that use the word "horse" to see if we can determine what that word means.
Unless we're talking about a homonym, then we're dealing with the same word, thelema. And there is no homonym to my knowledge.
If you are going to engage in ridicule or otherwise demeaning language, then don't ping me to your posts.
If you are willing to recognize that other people have honest conflicting opinions on this or other subjects then I would be interested in hearing yours.
“Also, again, it makes not a whit of difference if the word is used in any context. It is still indicative of the way the word is used and its meaning.”
Are you serious? So it doesn’t make one whit of difference to you any of my arguments, any of my objections, and any of my questions that you have not answered? But because this verse says that a father has authority over a daughter, so long as it is not under necessity or compulsion (by prior promises, or her own objections), that tells you that Paul believed in your still undefined concept of “free-will”? The will of the unregenerate isn’t the slave of sin? The fall did not happen, or is at least limited to virgin brides!?
“It is no different than looking at various verses that use the word “horse” to see if we can determine what that word means.”
So you don’t need to check the context to understand a word, as long as it kinda sorta feels like it supports your argument by assertion?
“Again, unfriendly. And your conscience tells you so.”
What’s more unfriendly? Insulting my intelligence or my responses to these silly statements?
“If you are going to engage in ridicule or otherwise demeaning language, then don’t ping me to your posts.”
I’m not demeaning him! I’m asking him to justify a series of arguments by assertion that he has based on an absurd and false premise. But I won’t ping you if you’re not interested (he was pinging you).
**From Gill’s commentary on that particular phrase:
“as the wind, though its sound is heard, and its force felt, it cannot be seen; nor is it known certainly, from whence it comes, and where are the treasures of it; from whence it begins, and where it ends; so is the grace of the Spirit of God in regeneration to a natural man; it is imperceptible, indiscernible, and unaccountable by him, 1Co_2:14.”**
Mister Gill has a right to his opinion, but, understanding the Christ’s opinion is what really matter’s. Jesus makes it clear that the receivers of the Spirit will certainly know by the ‘sound’ (not what they feel) that they have been born of the Spirit.
1 Cor. 2:14 is there for the born again soul who is learning to walk with God; as is pointed out by Paul in the entire passage of verses 9-16. All things become new. Verse 12 simply points out that the unconverted doesn’t get it, because they have not received the Spirit.
Now, back to the Lord, and his astonishing claim of a sound being heard when one is born of the Spirit:
“He that believeth in me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) John 7:38,39
“out of his belly..”
Speech, and music instructors, emphasize the use of the abdominal muscles is speaking and singing.
Initial deatailed accounts of the Spirit poured out:
Acts 2:4 The Jews: “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.”
Acts 8:17 the Samaritans (part Jew, part Gentile): “Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.” A scene apparently so startling that Simon the sorceror (no small time magician) wanted to buy that power, so that he too could to pass on to others the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 10:44-46 the Gentiles: While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished.....for they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.” and 19:6: “And when Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.”
And pertaining to the issue of ‘tongues’, the Oneness Pentecostals teach it to be the initial sign of Holy Ghost baptism, which with some converts, may be their only experience with tongues. But, with some, there may also be a ‘gift of tongues’ in later instances. I, and others likeminded, find anyone that can ‘turn on’ tongues like a lightswitch, to be subject to further evaluation (i.e. how they live their life). Are there fakers out there? ABSOLUTELY! Just as shallow sportsfans follow after whatever team is winning, and wear that team’s gear at that time, so are the spiritual fakers.
Now, to help tie this in with the subject of the thread, I point to the words of Christ in John 7:37: “If ANY man thirst, let him come unto me and drink.” (Drink?.....Jesus Christ is the administrator of Holy Ghost baptism, and he is offering it to ANY man, or woman).
It’s your conscience, GPH.
The meaning of the word itself is not dependent on the doctrine one hopes to find. In the passage in question, “will” referred to the “command and control” section of that father’s person.
It means the same thing in reference to God.
And for the sinner.
And for the saint.
“Christ’s opinion is what really matter’s.”
But the real problem is that Christ never actually said that the sign of salvation would be glossolalia. You didn’t attempt to justify any of the assertions I objected you to making, nor did you really explain why not all the Christians of Corinth spoke in tongues. Though you did write:
“e Oneness Pentecostals teach it to be the initial sign of Holy Ghost baptism, which with some converts, may be their only experience with tongues.”
On what biblical basis would you assert that someone who once spoke in tongues, can do so no longer? Nor were tongues (and this is real language, not glossolia) in the book of acts the only visible manifestations of the Spirit. He came over the Apostles, and presumably everywhere else (since it was visible enough that even Simon Magus noticed it, though no tongues or miracles were mentioned) as a “cloven fire” over the believers. Along with tongues, they also spoke prophecy:
Act_19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
But more important than all of these visible manifestations was the fruit of the Spirit, that is, of a changed and moral life. James does not ask them to speak in tongues for him, but asks them to “shew their faith by their works.”
Having once been in the Pentecostal movement (though not the ONENESS Pentecostals, who are Modalists I believe, and not Trinitarian), and seeing an emphasis on spiritual manifestations over scripture truth, I realized some time ago that the reason why tongues were always emphasized to such a high degree was because they were the easiest to fake. It’s quite difficult for someone to fake the gift of prophecy, at least for predicting events. (Most of them gave “prophecy” that was as vague as possible).
So then, what is a real means to see if someone is saved or not? Not through supposed spiritual manifestations, of which we do not know the origin beyond all doubt, but through the Gospel they preach (the most important aspect) and the fruit in their lives.
Which is exactly why it is unwise to take a concrete stand on an issue that involves apparent dichotomies in scriptural interpretation. In that sense the position of Alamo Girl (although it can hardly be considered as traditional orthodoxy) is a logical and reasoned approach to this issue.
Words are inadequate to explain the balance between the soverignty of God and His determined will to allow men the soverignty of their own free will. For without free will there can be no sin and without God's soverignty there can be no salvation.
“Which is exactly why it is unwise to take a concrete stand on an issue that involves apparent dichotomies in scriptural interpretation.”
This was exactly the opinion of Erasmus back when he tackled with Luther in THEIR debate on Free-Will. Luckily Luther didn’t take Erasmus at his word and remained in the Roman Catholic church. We are commanded to standfast for the faith, so I’m going to do that.
“In that sense the position of Alamo Girl (although it can hardly be considered as traditional orthodoxy) is a logical and reasoned approach to this issue.”
You say “in that sense” as if you had just explained something. But you didn’t. You just asserted something and then kept on truckin. How are two utterly contrary views of salvation logical?
” For without free will there can be no sin and without God’s soverignty there can be no salvation.”
Most of these misconceptions have been dealt with in the dozen or so responses to various people saying the same exact things, over and over again. There is nothing new under the sun.
I find his assertions to be perfectly logical and cogent. Simply because they do not comport with your own renderings of scripture does not make them absurd and when you make that bald faced assertion, you are engaging in ridicule, which makes your own arguments seem less valid.
Xzins earlier complimented you on the tenor of your posts and you reciprocated by calling his posts "absurd" and then pinging everyone to your allegedly logical response to his absurd posts.
I think an apology is in order. Not that anyone around here would ever do that. But who knows, maybe you could be the exception.
“I find his assertions to be perfectly logical and cogent.”
Well, I don’t. If you can’t tell the difference between calling a bad idea bad, and “ridiculing” a person, then maybe you should stay away from debates.
” and then pinging everyone to your allegedly logical “
It’s not like it was a vanity trip. I was pinging the people he pinged.
“I think an apology is in order.”
Okay, I apologize for calling his ridiculous argument absurd.
Do you think you can do that without insulting people?
“Do you think you can do that without insulting people?”
Do you think you can stop falsely accusing me of insulting people?
I think we are done here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.