What is faith?

[Carol]

Rom 1:16-17
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of
God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and
also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed
from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Ok, if the just shall live by faith, what is faith?

Rom 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

If faith is hearing and that hearing comes by the Word of God, what or
who is the Word of God?

John 1:1-4
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made
by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him
was life; and the life was the light of men.

There is more, but it is very clear that the scriptures are NOT the
Word of God, Christ Jesus is the Word of God, this is the witness
given within the scriptures themselves!

So, life comes from faith, faith comes from the hearing of the Word of
God and Jesus Christ is the Word of God.

The scriptures give much more witness of this, such as:

Rom 8:14
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
How would the sons of God be led? By the hearing of the Spirit of God.
By the commandments of Lord Jesus spoken into the hearts of men.

However, many have heard God, few actually believe and obey Him. True
faith, faith that saves, requires the hearing and obedient belief of
the Spirit of God, spoken by Jesus Christ and known by the witness of
the Holy Spirit (as when the dove descended on Jesus at His baptism).
That is where the saving power of God will come to a man.

~ Carol

[Jeff Caird]

Post by Carol
Rom 1:16-17
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of
God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and
also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed
from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
Ok, if the just shall live by faith, what is faith?

Unveering and steadfast trust in Jesus Christ and his promises.

[...]

Post by Carol
However, many have heard God,

Or rather, have heard _about_ God,

Post by Carol
few actually believe and obey Him.

And do you find this surprising? Many called/few chosen.

Post by Carol
~ Carol

Jeff

[Carol]

Post by Jeff Caird
Many called/few chosen.

Do you believe that "called" is not literal? My God called me - spoke
to me to call me to Him. That is exactly what that phrase means, not
some other watered down excuse for not hearing and believing God when
He speaks.

~ Carol

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Carol

Post by Jeff Caird
Many called/few chosen.

Do you believe that "called" is not literal? My God called me - spoke
to me to call me to Him. That is exactly what that phrase means, not
some other watered down excuse for not hearing and believing God when
He speaks.

But this is not even the Biblical picture. The entire nation of Israel
was
called out from its enslavement in Egypt. However, out of that
calling,
only a few made it into the land. As Paul points out several times in
the
NT, Israel was an example given to us (the Church) to aid our under-
standing of the economics of God's will and plan. All Americans are
called to voting booth but not many respond to that call. Christ
Himself, illustrates the difference between mere calling and the
actuality of being chosen in His rebuff of Israel in several parables.

As already quoted, the parable of Matt 22 and the Wedding teaches
that there is and will be segregation.

Matt. 22:3 "And he sent out his slaves to call those who had been
invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling to come.
Matt. 22:8 "Then he *said to his slaves, 'The wedding is ready,
but those who were invited were not worthy.

Also note a very special and interesting case in vs. 11ff. Here
was a man who came into the feast but was not worthily dressed.
By means of this parable, Christ teaches there is but one way
granted to men and it must be strictly followed or you will most
assuredly be separated out and cast into "outer darkness."
Darkness always speaks of judgment.

The parable then concludes with the point of fact:

Matt. 22:14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."


Argue the facts of interpretation, don't come in here thinking
your slight of hand and murmuring inuendoes will be uncritically
challenged.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Carol
There is more, but it is very clear that the scriptures are NOT the
Word of God, Christ Jesus is the Word of God, this is the witness
given within the scriptures themselves!

Where is your evidence that this is an either/or situation as opposed
to a both/and situation. Just how is God separate from His word? Idea
and Word are not distinguishable to an absolute, infinite, outside of
time, God. What does "Logos" mean by God's reality? Obviously
you do not "believe" in the plenary aspect of inspiration. You would
have us believe that God's thoughts, His will, His revelation are
separate from the written word. Yet, is it not strange that while on
earth, Christ's useage of the Scriptures stands counter to your
vague thesis? And how did the Apostles themselves regard the
Scriptures? How did they employ them?

Now it is from Scripture itself that we are informed that Paul,
as did all the Apostles, received his gospel directly from the
risen Christ Himself. Yet he employs not that revelation to
express and defend that gospel, but the Scriptures. How did
Christ counter Satan's temptations? Was it not from a literal
employment of the Scriptures?

Post by Carol
So, life comes from faith, faith comes from the hearing of the Word of
God and Jesus Christ is the Word of God.

You use reason to support faith? Interesting.
Scripture testifies of its own authority. It also reveals in its
writers use of it in their own writings, that it is not to be held
separate from God Himself.

Post by Carol
Rom 8:14
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
How would the sons of God be led? By the hearing of the Spirit of God.
By the commandments of Lord Jesus spoken into the hearts of men.

Which "spirit?" Man's spirit? God's spirit. How do we verify that
the "truth" revealed to me isn't just so vain imagining? Point being
made, how are we to test the spirits? i.e. error from truth? Does
not Satan parade around as a spirit of light, that is, God's truth
bearer?
You would have us believe that word and idea are distinquishable in
God. However, by leaving off the covers of revelation you, 1) deny
the witness of Scripture itself (Heb 1:2 "but in these last days"; Rev
22:19
:if anyone adds to the words of this book") 2) you open yourself
to the "vain imagination of men." Suddenly, revelation becomes
relativistic. It also destroys the Authoritative nature of the
Scriptures in that you judge Scripture by your view of the truth
rather than judging your perception of the truth by Scripture. Which
of the two is untainted by sin?

Post by Carol
However, many have heard God, few actually believe and obey Him.

And apart from the Scriptures, how do we receive propositional truth
from its Source? Would you have us all become naturalist in the same
vein as Henry David Thoreau? seeking "truth" from communing with
nature? What is there available to us apart from the Scripture's
themselves
that reveal propositional truth about God and His will for our lives?
Dreams? Visions? Which dream is from God and which is not? How
do I live my moment by moment life by means of vague feelings?

Post by Carol
True
faith, faith that saves, requires the hearing and obedient belief of
the Spirit of God, spoken by Jesus Christ and known by the witness of
the Holy Spirit (as when the dove descended on Jesus at His baptism).
That is where the saving power of God will come to a man.

What is faith? What is the essential difference between reason
and faith? Is there a distinction? If so, how are they related and
how are they distinquished? What is the difference between a reasoned
consent of the will to that of a consent of belief? Do volitions and
beliefs have different goals? How do you respond to someone who says
to you, "I do not know this to be true, but I believe?" What is the
psychology of faith? To paraphrase Augustine, "Faith is a conviction
grounded in authority as opposed to being grounded in reason."

I guess my ultimate question to you is, "What is reality?" If God
is real, then reality is what God determines it to be both by His own
nature and by His creative will. Faith rests on the testimony or the
Authority of God which stands outside of ourselves. We were
originally created derivative in nature. We derived truth from God.
But after the fall, man became his own authority and the intigration
point of adjudicating all truth. But this is rather like trying to
wash
off the dirt on your arm in a muddy pond. True faith is based
upon absolute truth which has absolute Authority standing behind
it. What, outside of the Scriptures, do you have that is so clean,
so pure, so absolutely authoritative, that you do not have to
reconstruct its teaching?

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Carol
There is more, but it is very clear that the scriptures are NOT the
Word of God, Christ Jesus is the Word of God, this is the witness
given within the scriptures themselves!

Where is your evidence that this is an either/or situation as opposed
to a both/and situation. Just how is God separate from His word? Idea

B - God is never separate from Gods word. The problem with you is that you
don't seem to understand that not all of us see the Bible as the
*infallible* word of God to begin with.

I don't believe that God is ever separate from its word...and that word
today can be found in all faiths under the headings "love" "tolerance"
"faith" "trust in God" "the Golden Rule" and "truth". Each of these
subjects are in all faiths..and in there is to be found God ...in my
opinion.

Bren.

[Carol]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
True faith is based
upon absolute truth which has absolute Authority standing behind
it. What, outside of the Scriptures, do you have that is so clean,
so pure, so absolutely authoritative, that you do not have to
reconstruct its teaching?

I'm glad you asked that.... because the written scriptures have been
touched by the hand of man. If not, then tell me which version of them
is perfect? We don't even hold the original documents in our hands and
we don't speak the languages they were written in.

There is only one absolute Authority that is clean, pure and
authoritive and who's teaching is direct today, as it was when the
scriptures were put to paper. That is God Himself.

If you say that God is not able to speak to men today, you say He is
dead and has no power. However, He testifies, within your authority
(the written scriptures), that He is the LIVING God and the God of
those that live. I agree, do you? It is rather humorous that I
believe what is in the scriptures and you do not.

~ Carol

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Carol
There is more, but it is very clear that the scriptures are NOT the
Word of God, Christ Jesus is the Word of God, this is the witness
given within the scriptures themselves!

Where is your evidence that this is an either/or situation as opposed
to a both/and situation. Just how is God separate from His word? Idea

B - God is never separate from Gods word. The problem with you is that you
don't seem to understand that not all of us see the Bible as the
*infallible* word of God to begin with.

How can I not see that when the believing remnant has always been such
a small group? You don't think things through very well.

Post by B.G. Kent
I don't believe that God is ever separate from its word...and that word
today can be found in all faiths under the headings "love" "tolerance"
"faith" "trust in God" "the Golden Rule" and "truth". Each of these
subjects are in all faiths..and in there is to be found God ...in my
opinion.

Your "opinion" counts as but a single voice in 10 billion. It is
relative and without any absolute standard by which to judge it to be
either true or false -apart from the Scriptures.

You still don't get it, do you? There MUST be an infallible rule
otherwise everything falls into the subjective realm. You also refuse
to acknowledge the fact that Christ Himself presumed and taught that
the Scriptures were 1) infallible and 2) to be interpreted literally.

Stop objecting with mere opinions. Debate the facts. If your position
is real reality, then 1) proved to us that Christ's actions and
thoughts are in line with your own and 2) that there is another hard
and true, non- subjective rule of authority.

[zach]

Post by B.G. Kent
I don't believe that God is ever separate from its word...and that word
today can be found in all faiths under the headings "love" "tolerance"
"faith" "trust in God" "the Golden Rule" and "truth". Each of these
subjects are in all faiths..

Prove it!

[B.G. Kent]

...

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by B.G. Kent
B - God is never separate from Gods word. The problem with you is that you
don't seem to understand that not all of us see the Bible as the
*infallible* word of God to begin with.

How can I not see that when the believing remnant has always been such
a small group? You don't think things through very well.

B - sigh.... you don't see it ..you simply accuse me of things I don't do.
Start debating "the facts " he says. First start proving them my friend.


Blessings
Bren

[B.G. Kent]

Post by zach

Post by B.G. Kent
I don't believe that God is ever separate from its word...and that word
today can be found in all faiths under the headings "love" "tolerance"
"faith" "trust in God" "the Golden Rule" and "truth". Each of these
subjects are in all faiths..

Prove it!

B - I don't have to prove an opinion. I have not stated anything as
objective fact. Your careful cut and paste job simply took away those
qualifiers.

Blessings for a more honest conversing....

Bren

[qquito]

But Christianity also teaches the concept of "free will". If indeed
there is such a thing, it must be God's design that some people will
"choose" to disbelieve and disobey Him; otherwise, "free will" is
rendered useless.

Post by Carol
Rom 1:16-17
.......
However, many have heard God, few actually believe and obey Him. True
faith, faith that saves, requires the hearing and obedient belief of
the Spirit of God, spoken by Jesus Christ and known by the witness of
the Holy Spirit (as when the dove descended on Jesus at His baptism).
That is where the saving power of God will come to a man.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by qquito
But Christianity also teaches the concept of "free will".

You are right here. It does. Unfortunately, many Christians do not understand
this. Perhaps for the same reason you failed to understand it in your very next

Post by qquito
If indeed
there is such a thing,

"Such a thing" as what? Free will? Or God's design?

Post by qquito
it must be God's design that some people will
"choose" to disbelieve and disobey Him;

Certainly not. That some choose to disbelieve and disobey is NOT willed by God.
So it is not according to His design. What _is_ according to His design is that
He makes use of their disobedience.

Post by qquito
otherwise, "free will" is
rendered useless.

No, it is not useless at all. It is not useless just because bad use was made of
it.

[snip]

[Jeff Caird]

Post by qquito
But Christianity also teaches the concept of "free will". If indeed
there is such a thing, it must be God's design that some people will
"choose" to disbelieve and disobey Him; otherwise, "free will" is
rendered useless.

Fallen man is incapable of true free will, all men are reprobate until such
time as the Holy Spirit transforms their hearts and rectifies their minds.
It is God's design only to choose who to call. All others go their own way.

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by qquito
But Christianity also teaches the concept of "free will". If indeed
there is such a thing, it must be God's design that some people will
"choose" to disbelieve and disobey Him; otherwise, "free will" is
rendered useless.

At the level of free will you are talking about, if God designs beings
that can operate independently at all, then they must have free will.
It is not a matter of a design choice by God, it is inherent in the
creation of such beings. The issue is how to deal with it, not whether
it exists.

[Dave]

Post by qquito
But Christianity also teaches the concept of "free will". If indeed
there is such a thing, it must be God's design that some people will
"choose" to disbelieve and disobey Him; otherwise, "free will" is
rendered useless.

Could you post some of these teachings of free will?

Dave

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Jeff Caird

Post by qquito
But Christianity also teaches the concept of "free will". If indeed
there is such a thing, it must be God's design that some people will
"choose" to disbelieve and disobey Him; otherwise, "free will" is
rendered useless.

Fallen man is incapable of true free will, all men are reprobate until such
time as the Holy Spirit transforms their hearts and rectifies their minds.
It is God's design only to choose who to call. All others go their own way.

Thank you. Put the doctrine in its proper perspective. Man can and
does
make choices -all the time. However, that is not narrow focus
theologically.
Theologically, the doctrine of depravity precludes any and all such
projections concerning man's ability to freely and independently to
turn back to God.

Biblically, the doctrine of total depravity is so extensive it is
rather like
that of the doctrine of God's existence. It is monolithic to the
extent
that it basically isn't even propositionally declared. It is assumed
to
the fact of the case. This certainly involves the "Theocratic Kingdom"
which God has originally intend for man to establish. However, at the
fall of Adam, Satan took over the rule of this planet & its realm of
humanity. Men are subjects ruled by Satan. They are his slaves and
ONLY by the grace of God in effectively drawing some out of that
ownership, does any man "choose" God. Outside of God's
re-establishment
of the Theocratic Kingdom, man is irrepairably lost and a slave to the
rule of the fallen kingdom, Satan.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by r***@yahoo.com

Post by qquito
But Christianity also teaches the concept of "free will". If indeed
there is such a thing, it must be God's design that some people will
"choose" to disbelieve and disobey Him; otherwise, "free will" is
rendered useless.

At the level of free will you are talking about, if God designs beings
that can operate independently at all, then they must have free will.
It is not a matter of a design choice by God, it is inherent in the
creation of such beings. The issue is how to deal with it, not whether
it exists.

No, the issue is confining it to the narrow theological thesis, not the
larger philosophical one. Philosophical we can entertain discussions
concerning free-will in the light of volition. However, theologically,
in
the narrow sense, it only speaks to whether of not man actually did
die at the time of Adam's sin or was God just joking when He decreed
"In the day you shall surely die."

[Dave]

Post by r***@yahoo.com

Post by qquito
But Christianity also teaches the concept of "free will". If indeed
there is such a thing, it must be God's design that some people will
"choose" to disbelieve and disobey Him; otherwise, "free will" is
rendered useless.

At the level of free will you are talking about, if God designs beings
that can operate independently at all, then they must have free will.
It is not a matter of a design choice by God, it is inherent in the
creation of such beings. The issue is how to deal with it, not whether
it exists.

This is a philosophical argument supporting free will. Is there a
biblical argument? In other words, can you find specific teachings of
free will in the Bible, or can you find teachings that God acts as you
describe above?

Dave

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Dave

Post by r***@yahoo.com

Post by qquito
But Christianity also teaches the concept of "free will". If indeed
there is such a thing, it must be God's design that some people will
"choose" to disbelieve and disobey Him; otherwise, "free will" is
rendered useless.

At the level of free will you are talking about, if God designs beings
that can operate independently at all, then they must have free will.
It is not a matter of a design choice by God, it is inherent in the
creation of such beings. The issue is how to deal with it, not whether
it exists.

This is a philosophical argument supporting free will. Is there a
biblical argument?

Why do you believe the two are mutually exclusive? Augustine was both a bibilcal
exegete and a philosopher. And it was Augustine who showed so clearly that yes,
free will _is_ biblical in De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio.

See especially chapters 1-4 (they are short chapters) in the English translation
at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1510.htm. That is where he proves that, God
"has revealed to us, through His Holy Scriptures, that there is in a man a free
choice of will."

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by Dave

Post by r***@yahoo.com
At the level of free will you are talking about, if God designs beings
that can operate independently at all, then they must have free will.
It is not a matter of a design choice by God, it is inherent in the
creation of such beings. The issue is how to deal with it, not whether
it exists.

This is a philosophical argument supporting free will. Is there a
biblical argument? In other words, can you find specific teachings of
free will in the Bible, or can you find teachings that God acts as you
describe above?

It doesn't need to be taught specifically, it's inherent in the
nature of independence.
Will is the mental faculty by which we deliberate over options and make
choices.
If we are to operate independently at all, then we must have that
ability. Ergo... free will.

Usually the debate about free will doesn't even touch that level, it
assumes it.
But the mind also has some level of other factors that are either
influential or else determining.
The mind has to have "data in" in order to have options over which
it can deliberate. It is in that realm that the normal debate over free
will takes place. Are these factors just influential, or are they
deterministic.

But if you want a bible passage then one is 1 Samuel 13 where Samuel
rebukes Saul saying "you have not kept the command the Lord your God
gave you; IF you had, he would have established your kingdom for all
time, BUT NOW your kingdom will not endure."

This establish the fact that counterfactual scenarios are possible
dependent on human action.

[Paul]

...

Post by Dave

Post by r***@yahoo.com
At the level of free will you are talking about, if God designs beings
that can operate independently at all, then they must have free will.
It is not a matter of a design choice by God, it is inherent in the
creation of such beings. The issue is how to deal with it, not whether
it exists.

This is a philosophical argument supporting free will. Is there a
biblical argument? In other words, can you find specific teachings of
free will in the Bible, or can you find teachings that God acts as you
describe above?

Okay, let's start with us being created in His image. God surely has free
will Himself. Hence, we must have it in some fashion (though obviously not
as completely since we are not omni-anything).

There are others.

In Christ,
Paul

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by r***@yahoo.com

Post by qquito
it must be God's design that some people will
"choose" to disbelieve and disobey Him;
otherwise, "free will" is rendered useless.

At the level of free will you are talking about, if God designs beings
that can operate independently at all, then they must have free will.
It is not a matter of a design choice by God, it is inherent in the
creation of such beings. The issue is how to deal with it, not whether
it exists.

No, the issue is confining it to the narrow theological thesis, not the
larger philosophical one. Philosophical we can entertain discussions
concerning free-will in the light of volition. However, theologically,
in the narrow sense, it only speaks to whether of not man actually did
die at the time of Adam's sin or was God just joking when He decreed
"In the day you shall surely die."

Hi Loren,

As I understood qquito, he was saying that IF free will exists God must
have designed free-willed creatures such that some would disobey,
otherwise freewill is not really free will.
I am thinking on several different levels of will and freedom.
The lowest level is independence. That is that a will must be free from
external control to act independently at all. This is not a design
consideration such that it could be different, it is inherent in
independence.
God could of course make creatures that don't really have an
independent will at all, but then they are nothing more than puppets
moving as he commands.
IF they are to act independently at all [as is required for a being to
love] THEN there is no way to avoid the possibility that such creatures
will exercise their free will and rebel.

If we grant this, and I think we have to, then the issue for God is how
to deal with that. But free will being necessary for an independent
creature is not really up to God or not.
I guess then I am saying that while qquito is right in that God has
designed people as such that they could disobey, they are of course not
designed to disobey, it is just that if God wants a creature that can
act independently, the "design" could not have been any different.

Usually the free will debate is at a higher level. It presumes the
first [an independent and therefore 'free' will] but recognizes
that our ability to deliberate is either influenced or determined by
outside/other factors.

I'm not sure I have understood then your objection. I think that
qquito was addressing the lower level, not the higher, whereas I think
you might be addressing the higher level and rightly assuming the
lower. But I'm not sure.....
In your 'narrow theological sense' do you mean that the will is
corrupted [dead] to the point of not being able to deliberate
accurately on the options? [Primarily regarding God] And therefore
being unable to choose right?
That would definitely be the debate over the higher level of will. I
don't think that is what qquito was addressing, but maybe he was.....


Could you clarify what you meant about the death decree and its
connection to free will?

Take care,

dave

[Dave]

Post by Matthew Johnson
And it was Augustine who showed so clearly that yes,
free will _is_ biblical in De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio.
See especially chapters 1-4 (they are short chapters) in the English translation
at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1510.htm. That is where he proves that, God
"has revealed to us, through His Holy Scriptures, that there is in a man a free
choice of will."

Here is the crux of Augustine's argument in Chapter 2:

Augustine: "There is, to begin with, the fact that God's precepts
themselves would be of no use to a man unless he had free choice of
will, so that by performing them he might obtain the promised rewards."


This is not a fact, as Augustine asserts, but a supposition.

Augustine: 'For they are given that no one might be able to plead the
excuse of ignorance, as the Lord says concerning the Jews in the
gospel: "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they would not have
sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin." Of what sin does He
speak but of that great one which He foreknew, while speaking thus,
that they would make their own--that is, the death they were going to
inflict upon Him? For they did not have "no sin" before Christ came to
them in the flesh.'

This is irrelevant, because it does not speak to free will.

Augustine: 'The apostle also says: "The wrath of God is revealed from
heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold back
the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is
manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible
things of Him are from the creation of the world clearly seen--being
understood by the things that are made--even His eternal power and
Godhead, so that they are inexcusable." In what sense does he pronounce
them to be "inexcusable," except with reference to such excuse as human
pride is apt to allege in such words as, "If I had only known, I would
have done it; did I not fail to do it because I was ignorant of it?"
or," I would do it if I knew how; but I do not know, therefore I do not
do it"? All such excuse is removed from them when the precept is given
them, or the knowledge is made manifest to them how to avoid sin.'

Augustine asks in what sense the men who hold back the truth in
unrighteousness are inexcusable. If he had just read the next couple of
sentences, he would have known the answer, and it is not what he
asserts.

Thus, chapter 2 doesn't prove anything.

Dave

[Dave]

Post by r***@yahoo.com
It doesn't need to be taught specifically, it's inherent in the
nature of independence.

A philosophical, but not biblical, statement.

Post by r***@yahoo.com
If we are to operate independently at all, then we must have that
ability. Ergo... free will.

But how do you know that man operates independently? Isn't that the
issue?

Dave

[Dave]

Post by Paul
Okay, let's start with us being created in His image. God surely has free
will Himself. Hence, we must have it in some fashion (though obviously not
as completely since we are not omni-anything).

Only Adam was created in God's image. After he fell, his descendents
were created in _his_ (fallen) image. So why must we have free will in
some fashion?

Dave

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by Dave

Post by r***@yahoo.com
It doesn't need to be taught specifically, it's inherent in the
nature of independence.

A philosophical, but not biblical, statement.

Nonetheless a true statement.
But I even gave a bible example, which you snipped and didn't respond
to...
Was that not good enough?

Post by Dave

Post by r***@yahoo.com
If we are to operate independently at all, then we must have that
ability. Ergo... free will.

But how do you know that man operates independently? Isn't that the
issue?

Well, honestly, no. That isn't the issue.
The free-will debate isn't that man isn't independent, it is how
much the will has been corrupted and whether that either determines or
merely influences the process.
IF you take the position that we are not even independent, then there
is nothing left to even debate.
If it's true that we are incapable of making any movement or even
decision on our own, then everything that ever happens is done directly
by God pulling a specific string. Even down to the thoughts we have.

You can believe that we aren't capable of even independent thoughts,
but then what's the point?

[Paul]

Post by Dave

Post by Paul
Okay, let's start with us being created in His image. God surely has
free
will Himself. Hence, we must have it in some fashion (though obviously
not
as completely since we are not omni-anything).

Only Adam was created in God's image.

This doesn't follow. It may be arguable, but certainly is not self-evident.

Post by Dave
After he fell, his descendents
were created in _his_ (fallen) image.

This is definitely arguable. Even with the most stringent view on original
sin, the imago dei is still present -- corrupted, and corrupted to the point
of man being unable to avoid evil on his own, but still present. We inherit
Adam's Sin, but we are not fundamentally created different.

Post by Dave
So why must we have free will in
some fashion?

Because the premises of your counter-argument fail to support it.

In Christ,
Paul

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by r***@yahoo.com
I am thinking on several different levels of will and freedom.
The lowest level is independence. That is that a will must be free from
external control to act independently at all. This is not a design
consideration such that it could be different, it is inherent in
independence.

But I don't agree with your basic construct. My view is that
Adam was created with but one inclination. That inclination
had but one end, one goal, one all inclusive reference point,
of course being God. All choices, naming animals or just
tending the "garden" were with one thing in mind, to please
God.

But then at the point where Adam entertained the very thought
of following after his wife, who had already been deceived, his
inclination changed. The original inclination was destroyed and
no longer existed. Suddenly, even before he acted, all his
choices had only self as the goal or reference point. He then
became the sole arbitrator of all things.

Choices are not between two different inclinations. Choice
only operates out of but one inclination. It has but one goal.
It is not until one has his inclination regenerated by being
"born again," does he have the option of operating out of
the new inclination or the old inclination. This is the dilemma
which Paul accounts for in Roman's 7. However, merely having
the new inclination is not enough. It is only when empowered
by the Spirit does the regenerate man make godly choices
out from his new, regenerated inclination.

This is far better explained by Shedd in his "Dogmatic
Theology" (look at the 3rd ed.) From his take on the
matter, I find complete resolve both in the theological
dilemma as well as every day Christian living. I find
that the biblical doctrine of total depravity and the sola
fide to be in complete harmony. It explains Eph 1
and Jn 3:16.

just my .02

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by r***@yahoo.com
In your 'narrow theological sense' do you mean that the will is
corrupted [dead] to the point of not being able to deliberate
accurately on the options? [Primarily regarding God] And therefore
being unable to choose right?

Choice does not operate independent of inclinational bias. For
the unregenerate man, he has but one inclination -self. Therefore
his choice can never rise up out of that inclination. If he spends
his money on wine, women and song or if he gives it to the poor
or even to the church, it always and only has but one goal -to
glorify self. For the unregenerate man, when giving money to even
a great cause, does so only with the thought of receiving something.
Christ stated this in so many words in Mt 6:1 and following -
pretending to give, intending to receive.

As Christians, must recognize that all too often, when we do
"the Lord's work" we operate under the power of the flesh rather
than the power of the Spirit. As Francis Schaeffer once stated
it, we must come to a realization that the christian has two
inclinations. Out of the one he performs the "Lord's work" in
the power of the flesh while from the regenerate inclination, he
performs the "Lord's work in the Lord's way" i.e. in the power
of the HS. THis is Paul's very thought in Rom 8.

There are two totally contrasting inclinations. There is the
inclination of self.

Rom. 3:10 There is none righteous, not even one;
Rom. 3:11 There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for
God;
Rom. 3:12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
There is none who does good, There is not even one. "

Thus it is required that God first regenerates the elect and
from that newly born man, the Spirit grants the gift of faith
from which the regenerate man now has both the new
capacity to be enlightened to the truth and then turn from
sin and turn to Christ.

I don't know if it adequately illustrates this paradigm of not,
but I like to compare it to falling in love. One does not
make a calculated choice as to whom he or she is going to
fall in love with. Even the pagan understanding aligns with
this via the cupid mythology. One is suddenly "struck"
and then he turns.

This further involves, in the narrow discussion, an understanding
that faith is not a volitional choice. It is a forced consent
based upon enlightenment to the facts. The regenerate
man turns to Christ both at the moment of justification as
well in his moment-by-moment sanctification, by the
heart felt conviction, not because "it is the reasonable
thing to do," even though that may be true. Faith is
"determined" by evidence not by volition. To fail at
objective knowledge and to just "take it on faith" is not
biblical faith.

Warfield in vol 9, ch 11 of his complete works give
a exposition of the psychology of biblical faith. I don't
agree with his idea concerning perfectionism, but his
explaination of faith is enlightening.

Post by r***@yahoo.com
That would definitely be the debate over the higher level of will. I
don't think that is what qquito was addressing, but maybe he was.....
Could you clarify what you meant about the death decree and its
connection to free will?
Take care,
dave

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Dave

Post by Paul
Okay, let's start with us being created in His image. God surely has free
will Himself. Hence, we must have it in some fashion (though obviously not
as completely since we are not omni-anything).

Only Adam was created in God's image.

This is not true.

Post by Dave
After he fell, his descendents
were created in _his_ (fallen) image.

This is rash speculation. NOWHERE in Scripture does it say that we are made in
Adam's image.

How hypocritical of you to insist on "biblical proof" for the existence of
free-will, while offering us this VERY non-biblical position.

Post by Dave
So why must we have free will in
some fashion?

Because God gives commands only to entities with the free will to obey the
commands. And don't fool yourself into believing that Genesis 1:3-24 contradicts
this: for those commands are all _third-person_ imperatives.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson
And it was Augustine who showed so clearly that yes,
free will _is_ biblical in De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio.
See especially chapters 1-4 (they are short chapters) in the English translation
at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1510.htm. That is where he proves that, God
"has revealed to us, through His Holy Scriptures, that there is in a man a free
choice of will."

Augustine: "There is, to begin with, the fact that God's precepts
themselves would be of no use to a man unless he had free choice of
will, so that by performing them he might obtain the promised rewards."
This is not a fact, as Augustine asserts, but a supposition.

Now wait just a minute: you admitted just a moment ago that it was the
'crux', not the whole thing. If you had read on a little further you
would have seen it is MORE than just "a supposition". On the contrary:
it is soundly based on the nature of a command.

Post by Dave
Augustine: 'For they are given that no one might be able to plead the
excuse of ignorance, as the Lord says concerning the Jews in the
gospel: "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they would not have
sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin." Of what sin does He
speak but of that great one which He foreknew, while speaking thus,
that they would make their own--that is, the death they were going to
inflict upon Him? For they did not have "no sin" before Christ came to
them in the flesh.'
This is irrelevant, because it does not speak to free will.

It is not irrelevant. On the contrary: it is the 'crux' of his
argument concerning why the contrafactual condition of Joh 15:22 IS
the proof that we have free choice of the will.

You really have to read more closely before you presume to comment on
what Augustine said and meant.

Post by Dave
Augustine: 'The apostle also says: "The wrath of God is revealed from
heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold back
the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is
manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible
things of Him are from the creation of the world clearly seen--being
understood by the things that are made--even His eternal power and
Godhead, so that they are inexcusable." In what sense does he pronounce
them to be "inexcusable," except with reference to such excuse as human
pride is apt to allege in such words as, "If I had only known, I would
have done it; did I not fail to do it because I was ignorant of it?"
or," I would do it if I knew how; but I do not know, therefore I do not
do it"? All such excuse is removed from them when the precept is given
them, or the knowledge is made manifest to them how to avoid sin.'
Augustine asks in what sense the men who hold back the truth in
unrighteousness are inexcusable. If he had just read the next couple of
sentences, he would have known the answer, and it is not what he
asserts.

It is the height of arrogance to suppose that such a classic exegete
failed to read the next couple of sentences. But as if this height of
arrogant folly was not enough for you, you had to add to it by going
further, namely, by being yourself guilty of failing to read yourself,
as I showed above.

Of _course_ Augustine read Rom 1:21+. It is you who has not understood
what you read there. The DIOTI of Rom 1:21 answers a _different_
question, namely, WHY they are inexcusable. But Augustine is answering
the question, "in what _sense_ are they inexcusable? (really, 'quomodo
sint inexcusabiles', which is a little more general).

Do you see the difference now? And speaking of 'inexcusable', your
perversion of what Augustine wrote is inexcusable, despite the
failings of the translation you are reading. For if you had read the
_previous_ sentences, you would have realized what he is really
talking about.

But instead of doing this, you tried to dismiss John 15:22 as
'irrelevant'.

Post by Dave
Thus, chapter 2 doesn't prove anything.

No, chapter 2 proves a great deal. You have just not even begun to
understand the chapter.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Dave

Post by Paul
Okay, let's start with us being created in His image. God surely has free
will Himself. Hence, we must have it in some fashion (though obviously not
as completely since we are not omni-anything).

Only Adam was created in God's image. After he fell, his descendents
were created in _his_ (fallen) image. So why must we have free will in
some fashion?
Dave

B - there is a bible with the passage....he created He and she, them, in
his image. So are you saying that this passage is wrong?

Bren

[Proshome]

Dear Dave, thru Bren:
I could not find the post of Dave's, but I would like to make a point to
him. Please scroll down to view my comments.

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Dave

Post by Paul
Okay, let's start with us being created in His image. God surely has
free
will Himself. Hence, we must have it in some fashion (though obviously
not
as completely since we are not omni-anything).

Only Adam was created in God's image. After he fell, his descendents
were created in _his_ (fallen) image. So why must we have free will in
some fashion?

I disagree with your concept as you stated here. Imho, The person that was
to become Adam was in need of correction from his birth, before creation.
It only happened that the opportunity to make visible this character trait
and to display a part of his hidden self, was made manifest through the
occasion and person of Eve, whom, by the way, inherited her sinful nature
from Adam. This may be a little difficult to understand, in that many, if
not most Christians, do not believe that Adam was also a son of the Creator
God. (see Lk :38) The difference between the Christ and his younger brother
was simply that the First generated son had the spirit of his father in him,
while the younger had a rebel sort of spirit in him. For me, this is the
"Why" the sin filter called Earth was deemed necessary. Having free will
must be accompanied by responsible accountability. It this is not
personally achieved by an individual, they will not be allowed to enter into
eternal life on this Earth with the annointed.

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Dave
Dave

B - there is a bible with the passage....he created He and she, them, in
his image. So are you saying that this passage is wrong?
Bren

[Dave]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave
Only Adam was created in God's image.

This is not true.

So you say. But offer no argument to support yourself.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave
After he fell, his descendents
were created in _his_ (fallen) image.

This is rash speculation. NOWHERE in Scripture does it say that we are made in
Adam's image.

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with Gen 5:3 -- "When Adam had
lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in
his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth."

Post by Matthew Johnson
How hypocritical of you to insist on "biblical proof" for the existence of
free-will, while offering us this VERY non-biblical position.

See above. How ignorant of you to call my statement "non-biblical."

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave
So why must we have free will in
some fashion?

Because God gives commands only to entities with the free will to obey the
commands.

How do you know this? What or who tells you that God behaves this way?

Dave

[Dave]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Dave
Only Adam was created in God's image. After he fell, his descendents
were created in _his_ (fallen) image. So why must we have free will in
some fashion?

B - there is a bible with the passage....he created He and she, them, in
his image. So are you saying that this passage is wrong?

You refer to Gen 1:26 -- "God created man in His own image, in the
image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

I base my statement on Gen 5:3 -- "When Adam had lived one hundred and
thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness,
according to his image, and named him Seth."

Adam was created in God's image. Then Adam fell. The image of God in
Adam was damaged. Adam's children were born in this damaged image.

Dave

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave
Only Adam was created in God's image.

This is not true.

So you say. But offer no argument to support yourself.

That is not true. I did offer it. You just failed to recognize it.

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave
After he fell, his descendents
were created in _his_ (fallen) image.

This is rash speculation. NOWHERE in Scripture does it say that we are made in
Adam's image.

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with Gen 5:3 -- "When Adam had
lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in
his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth."

I know it better than you do. That is how I know it does not support
you. Not even close. Why, the only thing it is close to supporting is
that _Adam_ had sons in his own likeness. NOT that all mankind since
is in Adam's image, not God's.

Why, in fact, it is I who should be telling _you_ to familiarize
yourself with the verse from Genesis that undercuts your disastrous
position: Gen 9:6, which reads:

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for
GOD MADE MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE. (Gen 9:6 RSVA)

Now pay attention this time! This reference to "made Man in His own
image" _cannot_ be referring exclusively to the creation of the first
man, as you would have us believe. For the same word (H120) is used
here for 'man' throughout this verse: that means man _contemporary_ to
the slayer and the slain, NOT Adam.

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson
How hypocritical of you to insist on "biblical proof" for the existence of
free-will, while offering us this VERY non-biblical position.

See above. How ignorant of you to call my statement "non-biblical."

I did see above. It shows up your own ignorance. Your statement really is
non-biblical, since it contradicts Gen 9:6.

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave
So why must we have free will in
some fashion?

Because God gives commands only to entities with the free will to obey the
commands.

How do you know this? What or who tells you that God behaves this way?

I already answered this question. Your response was a tragically bad
misreading of Augustine. And now you compound your error with even
worse reading of Scripture.

[Dave]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson
And it was Augustine who showed so clearly that yes,
free will _is_ biblical in De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio.
See especially chapters 1-4 (they are short chapters) in the English translation
at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1510.htm. That is where he proves that, God
"has revealed to us, through His Holy Scriptures, that there is in a man a free
choice of will."

Augustine: "There is, to begin with, the fact that God's precepts
themselves would be of no use to a man unless he had free choice of
will, so that by performing them he might obtain the promised rewards."
This is not a fact, as Augustine asserts, but a supposition.

Now wait just a minute: you admitted just a moment ago that it was the
'crux', not the whole thing.

The crux of a matter is the most important part. Thus, usually, the
crux is not the whole thing. What is your objection?

Dave

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Dave

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Dave
Only Adam was created in God's image. After he fell, his descendents
were created in _his_ (fallen) image. So why must we have free will in
some fashion?

B - there is a bible with the passage....he created He and she, them, in
his image. So are you saying that this passage is wrong?

You refer to Gen 1:26 -- "God created man in His own image, in the
image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
I base my statement on Gen 5:3 -- "When Adam had lived one hundred and
thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness,
according to his image, and named him Seth."

We know you base it on this. What we do not know is _why_ you believe this
supports you. It does not.

Post by Dave
Adam was created in God's image.

True...

Post by Dave
Then Adam fell.

also true...

Post by Dave
The image of God in
Adam was damaged.

and also true, but do not confuse 'image' with 'likeness'.

Post by Dave
Adam's children were born in this damaged image.

Ah, but the Gen 5:3 verse you cite above does NOT say this. It says ONE son of
Adam was born in his _likeness_, NOT in his _image_.

So no, no support for your position in Gen 5:3. Only in your imaginative
misreading of it.

Post by Dave
Dave

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by r***@yahoo.com
I am thinking on several different levels of will and freedom.
The lowest level is independence. That is that a will must be free from
external control to act independently at all. This is not a design
consideration such that it could be different, it is inherent in
independence.

But I don't agree with your basic construct. My view is that
Adam was created with but one inclination.

Hi Loren,
I'm curious as to what I wrote that would make you think I am at odds
with this.

I'm not sure why you would disagree with the "basic construct".
Is 'will' not the mental faculty by which we deliberate over
options and choose?
Do we have ownership over that faculty?

That's about all I am saying for the lower level. How is it you
disagree with the construct?

God bless,

dave

[Paul]

Post by Dave
Adam was created in God's image. Then Adam fell. The image of God in
Adam was damaged. Adam's children were born in this damaged image.

Right! The image of God is damaged in us, but is still there.

We're all saying the same thing, it appears. :-)

In Christ,
Paul

[Dave]

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson
How hypocritical of you to insist on "biblical proof" for the existence of
free-will, while offering us this VERY non-biblical position.

See above. How ignorant of you to call my statement "non-biblical."

I've changed my mind, and apologize for the above remark. You were not
_ignorant_ to call my statement non-biblical. You were _arrogant_ to
think that you know the Scriptures so well that you are certain about
everything it does not teach.

Dave

[Dave]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave
Only Adam was created in God's image.

...

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave
After he fell, his descendents
were created in _his_ (fallen) image.

This is rash speculation. NOWHERE in Scripture does it say that we are made in
Adam's image.

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with Gen 5:3 -- "When Adam had
lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in
his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth."

I know it better than you do. That is how I know it does not support
you. Not even close. Why, the only thing it is close to supporting is
that _Adam_ had sons in his own likeness. NOT that all mankind since
is in Adam's image, not God's.

How convenient it was for you to omit the words "according to his
image" in your rebuttal. It is just another example of the eisegesis
you so frequently engage in.

Dave

[Dave]

Post by Paul

Post by Dave
Adam was created in God's image. Then Adam fell. The image of God in
Adam was damaged. Adam's children were born in this damaged image.

Right! The image of God is damaged in us, but is still there.

I don't believe that we have any way to determine the extent of the
damage. Is it merely like a car with a scratch that we can cover up or
ignore, or has the car been run through one of those crushers that
renders it not a car any more, or what? What criteria can we use to
measure the amount of image of God left in mankind after the fall?

Dave

[Dave]

Post by Matthew Johnson
Why, in fact, it is I who should be telling _you_ to familiarize
yourself with the verse from Genesis that undercuts your disastrous
Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for
GOD MADE MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE. (Gen 9:6 RSVA)
Now pay attention this time! This reference to "made Man in His own
image" _cannot_ be referring exclusively to the creation of the first
man, as you would have us believe. For the same word (H120) is used
here for 'man' throughout this verse: that means man _contemporary_ to
the slayer and the slain, NOT Adam.

The problem with your interpretation is that everyone after Adam and
Eve is born, not made.

Dave

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Dave

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson
How hypocritical of you to insist on "biblical proof" for the existence of
free-will, while offering us this VERY non-biblical position.

See above. How ignorant of you to call my statement "non-biblical."

I've changed my mind, and apologize for the above remark.

Just as "left-handed compliments" are not really compliments, your apology was
no real apology.

Post by Dave
You were not
_ignorant_ to call my statement non-biblical.

Well, you got that part right. Pity you then spit in the soup by ruining your

Post by Dave
You were _arrogant_ to
think that you know the Scriptures so well that you are certain about
everything it does not teach.

No, the arrogance is yours. For here, your arrogance takes the form of reckless
presumption, presuming that that _is_ what I am doing.

It is not what I am doing. I by no means pretend to know "about everything it
does not teach". Only by a fantastic feat of presumption could you have
extracted that nonsense out of what I _did_ say.

But of course, I expected this. For I know from long experience now, that your
disastrous misinterpretation of Scripture can ONLY be defended by such
presumption. You have done nothing but provide more evidence of this: 'Reform'
theology depends on presumption.

Nor is this my experience alone. Many others with a FAR better claim to
Scriptural wisdom than I have made the same observation long ago.

[Proshome]

Post by Dave

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Dave
Only Adam was created in God's image. After he fell, his descendents
were created in _his_ (fallen) image. So why must we have free will in
some fashion?

B - there is a bible with the passage....he created He and she, them, in
his image. So are you saying that this passage is wrong?

You refer to Gen 1:26 -- "God created man in His own image, in the
image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
I base my statement on Gen 5:3 -- "When Adam had lived one hundred and
thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness,
according to his image, and named him Seth."
Adam was created in God's image. Then Adam fell. The image of God in
Adam was damaged. Adam's children were born in this damaged image.

I see things a bit differently. The personality that eventually became the
human being in Adam, already was in need of correction before creation. It
was that personality that had brought sin into this world. Ref:
Romans 5:12 (KJV) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
The word sinned, as used here in this KJV quote sounds wrong on the basis
that most would find it difficult, to say the least, when trying to
understand how a newly born baby could be guilty of having sinned. One the
other hand, if one believed in transmigration of the soul, it would then be
possible. I happen to be one that believes in reincarnation as being the
rule rather than the exception.

Post by Dave
Dave

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave

And it was Augustine who showed so clearly that yes, free will
_is_ biblical in De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio.
See especially chapters 1-4 (they are short chapters) in the
English translation at
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1510.htm. That is where he
proves that, God "has revealed to us, through His Holy
Scriptures, that there is in a man a free choice of will."

Augustine: "There is, to begin with, the fact that God's precepts
themselves would be of no use to a man unless he had free choice
of will, so that by performing them he might obtain the promised
rewards."
This is not a fact, as Augustine asserts, but a supposition.

Now wait just a minute: you admitted just a moment ago that it was
the 'crux', not the whole thing.

The crux of a matter is the most important part. Thus, usually, the
crux is not the whole thing. What is your objection?

What is your problem, Dave? Do you belong to some bizarre cult that
believes in answering before you have heard the whole question? The
answer to your question was _already_ in the post you are responding
to. But you, it seems, were too lazy to read the next sentence to get
your answer before you interrupt with a stupid question.

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson
Now wait just a minute: you admitted just a moment ago that it was
the 'crux', not the whole thing. If you had read on a little further
you would have seen it is MORE than just "a supposition". On the
contrary: it is soundly based on the nature of a command.

So yes, it was a stupid question. A _really_ stupid question. For the
answer was staring you right in the face. But you still managed to
miss it.

Just in case you are _still_ missing it, the answer was in the very
next sentence: "If you had read on a little further you would have
seen it is MORE than just 'a supposition'."

And now you just made the same mistake again! You refused to "read on
a little further". No wonder you cannot understand Scripture.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Proshome
I see things a bit differently. The personality that eventually became the
human being in Adam, already was in need of correction before creation. It
Romans 5:12 (KJV) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and
The word sinned, as used here in this KJV quote sounds wrong on the basis
that most would find it difficult, to say the least, when trying to
understand how a newly born baby could be guilty of having sinned.

And yet that is the scriptural testamony. Not just David's cry in Ps
5 but:

Job 14:1 "Man, who is born of woman, Is short-lived and full of
turmoil.
Job 14:2 "Like a flower he comes forth and withers. He also flees like
a shadow and does not remain.
Job 14:3 "Thou also dost open Thine eyes on him, And bring him into
judgment with Thyself.
Job 14:4 "Who can make the clean out of the unclean? No one!

Job here concludes that uncleanliness if passed from generation
to generation and none escape it. One evidence is the brevity of
men's lives and the hardship that comes during his stay. He also
recognizes that it is monolithic.

"Little lords and brief kings" as Tolkien wrote in the Silmarilian.

Post by Proshome
One the
other hand, if one believed in transmigration of the soul, it would then be
possible. I happen to be one that believes in reincarnation as being the
rule rather than the exception.

You are pursuing this incorrectly. The theological debate concerns not
transmigration but that teaching involved in the term, traducianism.
That
not only is it placed in man to procreate physically, but that he also
produces the immaterial part of the new creation as well. Thus the
Messiah
was born of a virgin. He was born in the "likeness of sinful flesh"
but He
did not have a human father through which the fallen immaterial nature
would have been passed along. He was created truly human but without
sin/sin nature, an inclination other than a singularity of purpose to
please God.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson
Why, in fact, it is I who should be telling _you_ to familiarize
yourself with the verse from Genesis that undercuts your disastrous
Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for
GOD MADE MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE. (Gen 9:6 RSVA)
Now pay attention this time! This reference to "made Man in His own
image" _cannot_ be referring exclusively to the creation of the first
man, as you would have us believe. For the same word (H120) is used
here for 'man' throughout this verse: that means man _contemporary_ to
the slayer and the slain, NOT Adam.

The problem with your interpretation is that everyone after Adam and
Eve is born, not made.

No, that is not a problem at all. Why would it be? So _what_ if they are born,
not made?

Besides: even if it were a problem, it would be a problem not for my
interpretation, but for the Biblical text of Gen 9:6 itself.

It sounds to me like you are grasping at straws.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave
Only Adam was created in God's image.

...

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave
After he fell, his descendents
were created in _his_ (fallen) image.

This is rash speculation. NOWHERE in Scripture does it say that we are made in
Adam's image.

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with Gen 5:3 -- "When Adam had
lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in
his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth."

I know it better than you do. That is how I know it does not support
you. Not even close. Why, the only thing it is close to supporting is
that _Adam_ had sons in his own likeness. NOT that all mankind since
is in Adam's image, not God's.

How convenient it was for you to omit the words "according to his
image" in your rebuttal.

Well, no, it was not convenient. On the contrary: it has only complicated
matters.

Post by Dave
It is just another example of the eisegesis
you so frequently engage in.

No, it is no such thing. Nor do I "frequently engage in eisegesis". This false
accusation is just another example of how you advocates of "Reform theology"
turn to false accusations when your false reasoning is exposed.

The fact remains that Gen 5:3 does NOT support the notion that _all_ men are
born/made in the image of Adam, and not of God. ON the contrary: Gen 9:5-6 makes
it clear that ALL men are made in the image of God.

[Dave]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave
How convenient it was for you to omit the words "according to his
image" in your rebuttal.

Well, no, it was not convenient. On the contrary: it has only complicated
matters.

Yeah! Because you got caught!

Dave

[Dave]

...

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson
Now pay attention this time! This reference to "made Man in His own
image" _cannot_ be referring exclusively to the creation of the first
man, as you would have us believe. For the same word (H120) is used
here for 'man' throughout this verse: that means man _contemporary_ to
the slayer and the slain, NOT Adam.

The problem with your interpretation is that everyone after Adam and
Eve is born, not made.

No, that is not a problem at all. Why would it be? So _what_ if they are born,
not made?

In your interpretation that "man" means "contemporary to the slayer and
the slain," if neither the slayer nor the slain are made, but are born,
then the interpretation is wrong.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Besides: even if it were a problem, it would be a problem not for my
interpretation, but for the Biblical text of Gen 9:6 itself.

No. The biblical text says exactly what God intends.

Post by Matthew Johnson
It sounds to me like you are grasping at straws.

Then you should get your hearing checked.

Dave

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson
Now pay attention this time! This reference to "made Man in His
own image" _cannot_ be referring exclusively to the creation of
the first man, as you would have us believe. For the same word
(H120) is used here for 'man' throughout this verse: that means
man _contemporary_ to the slayer and the slain, NOT Adam.

The problem with your interpretation is that everyone after Adam
and Eve is born, not made.

No, that is not a problem at all. Why would it be? So _what_ if they are born,
not made?

In your interpretation that "man" means "contemporary to the slayer
and the slain," if neither the slayer nor the slain are made, but are
born, then the interpretation is wrong.

No, that is not true. Why would it be?

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson
Besides: even if it were a problem, it would be a problem not for my
interpretation, but for the Biblical text of Gen 9:6 itself.

No. The biblical text says exactly what God intends.

And what God intended contradicts YOUR interpretation. For Gen 9:6
makes it clear that ALL men are made in the image of God: "for in the
image of God made He [God} man (JPS)".

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson
It sounds to me like you are grasping at straws.

Then you should get your hearing checked.

It checks out fine. It is your hearing that is so off.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave
How convenient it was for you to omit the words "according to his
image" in your rebuttal.

Well, no, it was not convenient. On the contrary: it has only complicated
matters.

Yeah! Because you got caught!

'Caught'? How typical of you to say 'caught', when the accusation of 'eisegesis'
is false.

If you want to brag of 'catching' others, Dave, you have to get the accusation
right, and not make false accusations.

[Dave]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave
How convenient it was for you to omit the words "according to his
image" in your rebuttal.

Well, no, it was not convenient. On the contrary: it has only complicated
matters.

Yeah! Because you got caught!

'Caught'? How typical of you to say 'caught', when the accusation of 'eisegesis'
is false.

You selectively left out part of the verse that would weaken your
argument, and then, when I point it out, you try to defend yourself by
accusing me. How typical of you, Matthew. But it won't fly.

Post by Matthew Johnson
If you want to brag of 'catching' others, Dave, you have to get the accusation
right, and not make false accusations.

The string of postings is sufficient to prove that my accusation is
true and your denial is false. Why can't you just admit what you did
since the evidence is there for everyone to see.

Dave

[Dave]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson
Now pay attention this time! This reference to "made Man in His
own image" _cannot_ be referring exclusively to the creation of
the first man, as you would have us believe. For the same word
(H120) is used here for 'man' throughout this verse: that means
man _contemporary_ to the slayer and the slain, NOT Adam.

The problem with your interpretation is that everyone after Adam
and Eve is born, not made.

No, that is not a problem at all. Why would it be? So _what_ if they are born,
not made?

In your interpretation that "man" means "contemporary to the slayer
and the slain," if neither the slayer nor the slain are made, but are
born, then the interpretation is wrong.

No, that is not true. Why would it be?

Of course it is true. Matthew, you should be into solid food, but you
still need milk. The English word "man" has at least 25 definitions.
For each occurrence of the word, you have to pick the one that fits the
context.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson
Besides: even if it were a problem, it would be a problem not for my
interpretation, but for the Biblical text of Gen 9:6 itself.

No. The biblical text says exactly what God intends.

And what God intended contradicts YOUR interpretation. For Gen 9:6
makes it clear that ALL men are made in the image of God: "for in the
image of God made He [God} man (JPS)".

Shouting won't make your incorrect interpretation any more correct.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson
It sounds to me like you are grasping at straws.

Then you should get your hearing checked.

It checks out fine. It is your hearing that is so off.

My hearing is not in question. You are the one who claimed to be
hearing things.

Dave

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave
How convenient it was for you to omit the words "according to his
image" in your rebuttal.

Well, no, it was not convenient. On the contrary: it has only complicated
matters.

Yeah! Because you got caught!

'Caught'? How typical of you to say 'caught', when the accusation
of 'eisegesis' is false.

You selectively left out part of the verse that would weaken your
argument, and then, when I point it out, you try to defend yourself by
accusing me.

Why, yes. Because you did not accuse me of leaving it out. If you had
stuck to that, the history of this thread would be VERY different. No,
you showed your own criminal rashness, accusing me of eisegesis, and
even of _habitual_ eisegesis, all based on this FAR too slender
evidence.

Post by Dave
How typical of you, Matthew. But it won't fly.

No, it is your gross exaggerations what won't fly. On the contrary: by
exaggerating as grossly as you are _still_ doing, you expose yourself
as a slanderer. Nice going.

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson
If you want to brag of 'catching' others, Dave, you have to get the
accusation right, and not make false accusations.

The string of postings is sufficient to prove that my accusation is
true and your denial is false.

Nonsense. On the contrary: it proves the very opposite. It proves that
your accusation is grossly exaggerated, to the point of being grossly
incorrect, even slanderous.

Post by Dave
Why can't you just admit what you did since the evidence is there for
everyone to see.

Because it isn't true. It really is that simple.

Besides: why can't you admit that you were wrong to think that the
verse in question supports your position at all? Clean your finger
before you point at my spots.

After all, even when one corrects my citation, and includes the WHOLE
verse, it is OBVIOUS that it does not support you. For it says not
just 'man', but it uses the word 'Adam' to _mean_ 'Man'.

That alone is enough to undermine your argument, as I have already shown.

But since you have shown such stubbornness, repeating slanderous
accusations, I fear I really will have to cite the whole verse here,
and explain all over again why you are dead wrong. So here goes:

Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the
image of God made He man. (Gen 9:6 JPS)

In all cases in this verse 'man' translates 'DM (H120), which is
listed in Strong's Lexicon as meaning not the proper name 'Adam', but
rather 'human being', an indivisual of the species, 'mankind'.

There are other meanings listed, but they are clearly inappropriate
here, so I omit them.

Now pay attention to the last part, "for in the image of God made He
man." The 'He' obviously refers to God. Now can this verse possibly
refer only to the first man, Adam? NO. There are two reasons for
this. 1) The very same word, H120, is already used in this verse to
refer to the person who did the shedding of blood; it is unthinkable
that the author would then use this word to refer to Adam. 2) If Adam
alone is made in the image of God, and all other men are made only in
fallen Adam's image, then "in the image of God made He man" is
completely irrelevant here! Why would he talk about the image Adam was
made in, when the context is about _modern_ men?

The answer is plain to all except the dupes of Reform Theology: it is
because ALL mankind, is made in the image of God, however imperfectly
we reflect that image today.

So you see, even when you correct my citation, the verse does NOT
support you. Not at all. On the contrary: my original argument only
needs slight correction.

Therefore not only are you waging war against the Word of God in this
thread, but you are the one who is practicing dishonesty here,
pretending that the issue is my misquote, when the _real_ issue is
your war against the Word of God.

[Matthew Johnson]

[snip]

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave
In your interpretation that "man" means "contemporary to the
slayer and the slain," if neither the slayer nor the slain are
made, but are born, then the interpretation is wrong.

No, that is not true. Why would it be?

Of course it is true. Matthew, you should be into solid food, but you
still need milk.

So says the man who hasn't even made it to real milk yet. And you
never will, as long as you insist on trading snipes like this. Try
sticking to the topic instead.

Post by Dave
The English word "man" has at least 25 definitions.

Who _cares_ what meaning the _English_ word has? The verses we are
talking about were not written in English.

Post by Dave
For each occurrence of the word, you have to pick the one that fits
the context.

And you have not done this correctly yet, not in any language. For if
you had, you would see your interpretation is false.

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson
Besides: even if it were a problem, it would be a problem not for my
interpretation, but for the Biblical text of Gen 9:6 itself.

No. The biblical text says exactly what God intends.

And what God intended contradicts YOUR interpretation. For Gen 9:6
makes it clear that ALL men are made in the image of God: "for in the
image of God made He [God} man (JPS)".

Shouting won't make your incorrect interpretation any more correct.

Evidently it won't get you to admit your error, either.

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson
It sounds to me like you are grasping at straws.

Then you should get your hearing checked.

It checks out fine. It is your hearing that is so off.

My hearing is not in question.

Yes, it is. You are still hearing imaginary things when you should be
hearing Scripture. How else could you miss that all men are made in God's
image?

Post by Dave
You are the one who claimed to be hearing things.

Oh, now aren't you sophisticated now! But are you even sophisticated
enough to know the name for the fallacy your sarcasm relies on? It is
"amphiboly" or simple 'equivocation'?

[Dave]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave
How convenient it was for you to omit the words "according to his
image" in your rebuttal.

Well, no, it was not convenient. On the contrary: it has only complicated
matters.

Yeah! Because you got caught!

'Caught'? How typical of you to say 'caught', when the accusation
of 'eisegesis' is false.

You selectively left out part of the verse that would weaken your
argument, and then, when I point it out, you try to defend yourself by
accusing me.

Why, yes. Because you did not accuse me of leaving it out. If you had
stuck to that, the history of this thread would be VERY different. No,
you showed your own criminal rashness, accusing me of eisegesis, and
even of _habitual_ eisegesis, all based on this FAR too slender
evidence.

Bwahahaha! I didn't accuse you of leaving "according to his image"
out!?? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read in this
newsgroup. Of course I accused you! Do you think, 'How convenient it
was for you to omit the words "according to his image" in your
rebuttal' is an attaboy? A pat on the back? A compliment? Get a clue!

Now let's check out my charge of eisegesis. Eisegesis is "the process
of reading one's own meaning into a text (as opposed to exegesis)."
This is what you did when you ignored the phrase "according to his
image." Ergo, you are guilty of eisegesis. The only question that
remains is whether you omitted the phrase accidentally or purposely.
Which is it, Matthew?

Dave

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Dave
How convenient it was for you to omit the words "according to his
image" in your rebuttal.

Well, no, it was not convenient. On the contrary: it has only
complicated matters.

Yeah! Because you got caught!

'Caught'? How typical of you to say 'caught', when the accusation
of 'eisegesis' is false.

You selectively left out part of the verse that would weaken your
argument, and then, when I point it out, you try to defend yourself by
accusing me.

Why, yes. Because you did not accuse me of leaving it out. If you had
stuck to that, the history of this thread would be VERY different. No,
you showed your own criminal rashness, accusing me of eisegesis, and
even of _habitual_ eisegesis, all based on this FAR too slender
evidence.

Bwahahaha!

This childishness shows why you cannot really understand the Bible
verses you quote. I wish I could say I was surprised. But the truth of
the matter is that you have been forcibly dragging this thread to this
low point for quite some time now.

What kind of credibility are you trying to establish for yourself with
"Bwahahaha", Dave? Do you really think your readers are ignorant of
the Proverb?

A scorner seeketh wisdom, and findeth it not; but knowledge is easy
unto him that hath discernment. (Pro 14:6 JPS)

By saying "Bwahahaha!", you have left no doubt: you -are- such a
scorner. And since you insist on an impossible intepretation of Gen
5:3, you make it even easier to believe that you are the "scorner who
seeks wisdom (about Scripture) but never finds it".

Post by Dave
I didn't accuse you of leaving "according to his image"
out!?? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read in this
newsgroup.

That could be so only if you didn't read your own posts. For they are
by far the more 'ridiculous'. Come to think of it, you give _other_
signs of not reading your own posts, so...

Read it in context! Look at the very next sentence, which you now ignore!

Post by Dave
Of course I accused you!

And wrongly. That was the point. But now you seem determined to miss
this point, too. Perhaps you would have known better if you understood
the construction of Gen 2:16-17. But you have just shown that you do
not understand this, either. Again, learning to read in context would
help.

Post by Dave
Do you think, 'How convenient it was for you to omit the words
"according to his image" in your rebuttal' is an attaboy? A pat on
the back? A compliment? Get a clue!

It is you who needs to 'get a clue'. You did not _stick_ to that. You
started with one erroneous conclusion and immediately proceeded to

Post by Dave
Now let's check out my charge of eisegesis. Eisegesis is "the process
of reading one's own meaning into a text (as opposed to exegesis)."

And this is where it is you, not I, who does it. It is you who reads
your own meaning into the text. Gen 9:6 does NOT allow you to read Gen
5:3 the way you do. Only your eisegesis does allow it.

Post by Dave
This is what you did when you ignored the phrase "according to his
image."

No, that is not what I did. That is what you do with this and several
other passages, when you cobble up apparent evidence that we are not
made in God's image.

Post by Dave
Ergo, you are guilty of eisegesis.

You cannot cover up the gaping holes in your logic with 'ergo'. On the
contrary: as I said before: so you see, even when you correct my
citation, the verse does NOT support you. Not at all. On the contrary:
my original argument only needs slight correction.

And yet you have no answer to this. Insted, you start your entire post
on a very wrong step, your childish, "Bwahahaha!"

Post by Dave
The only question that remains is whether you omitted the phrase
accidentally or purposely.

But this topic is not even relevant to the thread. Stick to the
topic. Admit that Gen 9:6 disallows your interpretation of Gen
5:3. ALL men are made in God's image, however dimmed that image is by
our own sins, such as starting a post with "Bwahahaha!"

[j***@go.com]

Post by Carol
Ok, if the just shall live by faith, what is faith?

"The alleged shortcut to knowledge, which is faith,
is only a short circuit destroying the mind."
-- John Galt (Ayn Rand's chief spokesman in _Atlas Shrugged_)

-- Jeffrey J. Sargent

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by j***@go.com

Post by Carol
Ok, if the just shall live by faith, what is faith?

"The alleged shortcut to knowledge, which is faith,
is only a short circuit destroying the mind."
-- John Galt (Ayn Rand's chief spokesman in _Atlas Shrugged_)
-- Jeffrey J. Sargent

Well Jeff, do you live consistently to this proposition? NO!
You live a life of faith. You can't even get into the car and
pull out onto the highway without some order of faith in
operation. And what is the basis for this faith? You drive
70MPH toward an on coming car without a thought in the
world. Why? Because you have faith that that car is not
going to cross over that double yellow line. So, your faith
is based upon some appreciation of the law. Faith is
ALWAYS based upon knowledge. The question is about
faith, its about your knowledge base. Rom 10:2. If you
have the wrong understanding of what is, you will suffer for
just you will suffer if you apply the British rules for the road
while driving in the US.

Rand has completely misunderstood the dynamic of faith.

[j***@go.com]

***@hotmail.com wrote:

<snip>

Post by l***@hotmail.com
So, your faith
is based upon some appreciation of the law. Faith is
ALWAYS based upon knowledge. The question is about
faith, its about your knowledge base.

And, as my knowledge has been that God does not
help when I need Him (other than the bare minimum;
nothing that would actually provide any joy or
happiness), it is on that knowledge and that
experience that my lack of faith is based.

-- Jeffrey J. Sargent