Can We Really Exercise Free Will?
- Thread starter LifelongLearner
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
If you go back and read the responses of both Adam and Eve......They did not lie and try to blame.
They named and sited their sin to God. Exactly the way it happened.........Cain Lied.
Eve was deceived. And she admitted it to God. Adam was not deceived and tried to "save" the woman.......Both covered in skins.
Cain, lied and was cursed.
They named and sited their sin to God. Exactly the way it happened.........Cain Lied.
Eve was deceived. And she admitted it to God. Adam was not deceived and tried to "save" the woman.......Both covered in skins.
Cain, lied and was cursed.
-
1
- Show all
They told a lie in the following ways....
The woman blamed the serpent for her sin.
Adam blamed the woman "that God had given him," for his sin.
They both did not take full responsibility for their sinning.
They both knew the same thing.
"Thou shall not eat."
(that may take a while to digest)
-
1
- Show all
One of our residents in this looney bin presented a question that he surely thought should stump, as it would seem that the answer were obvious (or at least should seem to me to regular run of the mill thinker) but, of course, I'm a metanoyer [sic] and so I'm not surprised if people do find me to be a bit metannoying [sic].
Anyway, especially since the question had never occurred to me before, to even give any it any consideration as a possibility, I really couldn't dismiss it as having an so obvious answer, even if at first glance it might seem to. The question he'd asked was whether everyone's sins had been forgiven, or something of that effect, even the sins of those 'destined' (my paraphrase) for hell and, being too impatient for this trump card to be thrown back out, and because I think that I'm found to be holding the right Bauer, I'm taking this opportunity to lead the turn with it.
Yes, I say, everyone's sin has been dealt with, and fully paid, at the cross. The sins of the world, even, not some of the world, or most of the world but all sin that constitutes 'the' world, as opposed to this or that world. Why else are there two different resurrections, and two different deaths? One deals with the inheritance of Abraham's promise (the better) and the other deals with those I'll categorize as the anti-Abrahamic, or those that refuse to believe.
It is my deduction that all sins have been paid in full, so that only leaves unbelief to be judged. It will be argued that unbelief is a sin, however, but if there is anything left to one's free will at all without actually being accounted as sin, unbelief would qualify. Would Jesus have become a sinner if His prayer stopped short of, "Let not My will but Yours be done" Would you have considered Him wicked if He only prayed, "Take this cup from me"? Of course, Jesus had faith so He 'overcame' His will to save Himself (which I don't think anyone would argue He wouldn't have gone to hell, though I could be wrong about no one arguing that) but, even if unbelief inevitably leads to sin, exercising one's gift, this of free will, wouldn't necessarily be a sin in itself.
So, everyone will be resurrected, because the sins of the world have been atoned entirely atoned for.
Even so, that understanding would leave the question why anyone has to suffer the second death for unbelief if it is not a sin. And the answer is because freely rejecting the source of eternal life leads to eternal death, and that is the ultimate 'missing the target.'
I decided not to tag the poser of this question in lieu of being able to write out the totality of my thoughts so far on it. It's hard to have an actual ongoing conversation when it has to be conducted with intermittent responses b/w life events that draws away from the coherent stream of exchange of thoughts. And by the time I'm able to form any sort of concrete thought on any particular subject (because I'll always be trying to learn) I'm distracted but always go back to the those (thoughts) that are the most intriguing to me, even if I do forgo actually trying to retrace the location of the exact conversation to pick it up....
Sooo, thanks to this particular teacher, even if there might be some things to iron out in my philosophy, I'll be preaching this conclusion going forward to anyone that will listen. That is, until @Cameron143 manages to momentarily stump me once again.
Anyway, especially since the question had never occurred to me before, to even give any it any consideration as a possibility, I really couldn't dismiss it as having an so obvious answer, even if at first glance it might seem to. The question he'd asked was whether everyone's sins had been forgiven, or something of that effect, even the sins of those 'destined' (my paraphrase) for hell and, being too impatient for this trump card to be thrown back out, and because I think that I'm found to be holding the right Bauer, I'm taking this opportunity to lead the turn with it.
Yes, I say, everyone's sin has been dealt with, and fully paid, at the cross. The sins of the world, even, not some of the world, or most of the world but all sin that constitutes 'the' world, as opposed to this or that world. Why else are there two different resurrections, and two different deaths? One deals with the inheritance of Abraham's promise (the better) and the other deals with those I'll categorize as the anti-Abrahamic, or those that refuse to believe.
It is my deduction that all sins have been paid in full, so that only leaves unbelief to be judged. It will be argued that unbelief is a sin, however, but if there is anything left to one's free will at all without actually being accounted as sin, unbelief would qualify. Would Jesus have become a sinner if His prayer stopped short of, "Let not My will but Yours be done" Would you have considered Him wicked if He only prayed, "Take this cup from me"? Of course, Jesus had faith so He 'overcame' His will to save Himself (which I don't think anyone would argue He wouldn't have gone to hell, though I could be wrong about no one arguing that) but, even if unbelief inevitably leads to sin, exercising one's gift, this of free will, wouldn't necessarily be a sin in itself.
So, everyone will be resurrected, because the sins of the world have been atoned entirely atoned for.
Even so, that understanding would leave the question why anyone has to suffer the second death for unbelief if it is not a sin. And the answer is because freely rejecting the source of eternal life leads to eternal death, and that is the ultimate 'missing the target.'
I decided not to tag the poser of this question in lieu of being able to write out the totality of my thoughts so far on it. It's hard to have an actual ongoing conversation when it has to be conducted with intermittent responses b/w life events that draws away from the coherent stream of exchange of thoughts. And by the time I'm able to form any sort of concrete thought on any particular subject (because I'll always be trying to learn) I'm distracted but always go back to the those (thoughts) that are the most intriguing to me, even if I do forgo actually trying to retrace the location of the exact conversation to pick it up....
Sooo, thanks to this particular teacher, even if there might be some things to iron out in my philosophy, I'll be preaching this conclusion going forward to anyone that will listen. That is, until @Cameron143 manages to momentarily stump me once again.
-
2
- Show all
No, I know the angels are real. I think largely what you wrote about the angels is fiction, but it's pretty much irrelevant to the point anyways. To the point you're getting closer at least, but I think you let the simplicity of the text go over your head, which that's forgiveable, that's pretty common actually. It's not really very complicated at all what happened in the Garden. Nor is God's will very complicated at all, believe that Jesus is the Son of God and be saved, reject that Jesus is the Son of God and be damned, it's actually pretty simple.
2 Corinthians 11:3
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
2 Corinthians 11:3
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
I have read it, many times. Eve said it was the devil's fault because he tricked her. Adam said it was Eve's fault because she gave the fruit to him. You can try and whitewash it till the cows come home but Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the serpent .. and the serpent didn't have a leg to stand on.
-
1
- Show all
Almost posted a disagree smilie to your comment. However, just logged in, first comment i saw as it's at the top of the page, so must read other comments for context first.
Might be interesting for you to know that it's such a short, bald comment, i immediately thought you'd confused the words fiction and fictional, or just wanted to be provocative.
Might be interesting for you to know that it's such a short, bald comment, i immediately thought you'd confused the words fiction and fictional, or just wanted to be provocative.
Getting a little over emotional, aren't we?
In all fairness, you might be junior in years as well as behaviour.
-
1
- Show all
I have read it, many times. Eve said it was the devil's fault because he tricked her. Adam said it was Eve's fault because she gave the fruit to him. You can try and whitewash it till the cows come home but Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the serpent .. and the serpent didn't have a leg to stand on.
I have read it, many times. Eve said it was the devil's fault because he tricked her. Adam said it was Eve's fault because she gave the fruit to him. You can try and whitewash it till the cows come home but Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the serpent .. and the serpent didn't have a leg to stand on.
Adam had His right woman and loved her more than we could imagine. Adam had face to face fellowship with the Lord and had a help meet that was perfectly suited for him......What would you do if you saw your wife dying before your eyes?.....You would try to save her.
-
1
-
1
-
1
- Show all
I doubt you will get an honest answer. Honest meaning, Scripture based. There is not even anything
in the text to suggest Eve was dying in front of Adam. People make up all kinds of stuff trying to
rationalize and justify their deception and then it is like pulling teeth trying to get them to admit it..
in the text to suggest Eve was dying in front of Adam. People make up all kinds of stuff trying to
rationalize and justify their deception and then it is like pulling teeth trying to get them to admit it..
-
1
- Show all
