The literal bible (good title I guess)

[St_Worm2]

Sorry; I tend to ignore run-on paragraphs.

Erm... not exactly...

As I understand justification, we are justified by 1) God's grace, without which you cannot also have necessary 2) faith a) working b) through love.

The passage from Ephesians above (and I did read ahead) I don't think can be read the way you say it is, simply because if that were true, there would be no need for Jesus, or anyone else, to command anything of us....(Ephesians 2:8-9)

In other words, our free will seems to be strongly implicit in the entire Bible. For how could God command us if we could not do? And therefore, we have the choice - if only to accept God's grace, and let Him do the rest - to have faith in God, and to work with Him, through His love.

In other words, it seems to me, Calvinism seems prone to hypocrisy of the sort NightWolf was speaking of. Not that Catholics don't make fine hypocrites, too. But if God's will overpowers human free will to such an extent that... He can even will your damnation...

And I've just opened a huge can of worms. I don't mean to insult you. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding. But it seems to me, you've got to do at least one something - have faith - in order to be saved by God. And therefore, it seems faith cannot be separate from work in order to really be faith. And therefore it cannot be separate from our ability to choose - i.e, free will. And it seems to me Calvinism rejects both free will, and as a result salvation by faith working in love. In other words, Calvinism seems to say our salvation entirely depends on God's efforts. In which case, no one is responsible for their damnation much less their bad actions. I hope I am misunderstanding.

Nevertheless, I will say that this is an intriguing interpretation of this particular passage, and I do like it. And I agree with it to an extent. It does not nullify free will, but enhances it - God makes us capable of more than we could ever accomplish with only our free will. But we still need free will.

Hi Chester, ok, with NightWolf's blessing, let's begin. What would you say to trying to find as much common ground first as I believe there is more of that than you might imagine. Also, we won't waste each other's time going round and round because we think we are on different pages when we really aren't.

How about we start by defining what "Free Will" is (generally speaking) and see if we are together on that one. My definition of free will is this, "the ability to choose according to our strongest inclination/desire at the moment we are making a choice".

Does that definition work for you?

Yours and His,
David

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

................

Here is my issue. I believe the bible is very literal and rather simple in terms of what it wants out of people. I believe there is to much of a case with people of picking and choosing what they want to follow. I ended up shutting down the person I was talking to when he said "You cannot judge me, God will do that when I die", I told him I was not there to judge him, told him I have read the book he is supposed to follow and proceeded to tell him that now I understand how the majority (in my eyes) of Christians think, they can ignore what the bible teaches and answer for it when they die.

So I wonder, if the bible appears to me to be very literal in the writings, why do people have such a hard time following it?

When you say that you tried Christianity...can you please elaborate on how that played out please ? What ultimately made you depart from it and ...if the Christian Faith were absolutely true (meaning Jesus is the Creator who came to Earth to die for our sins to reconcile us to himself so we could spend eternity with him) ...then how would you see that and would you feel compelled to become a dedicated Follower of Christ as evidenced by a complete surrender of your will and life for his glory and using ? Did you ever reach this point before ?

To your last point, The Bible is is a combination of literal, allegory, hyperbole, etc...depending on what is being considered in it. With God wanting the worlds populace to read and understand his written instructions on how to live and disclosing his very person, nature, and character....there isn't the ambiguity that many claim there is with the Bible. All it requires is some common sense in reading it, realizing when to take something figuratively versus literally, looking at the context of the message being read, and considering the culture at the time if it so applies . If a Reader chooses to go deeper in his understanding, then learning a little about Bible Hermanuetics would help in a fuller understanding. Short of that, most Bibles today come with a scholarly commentary at the bottom of each page so all the Reader has to do is read the text then drop down to the respective commentary for a deeper understanding.

I believe one possible reason some Readers don't follow it, is because they may have a BIble version that is not particularly conducive to modern vernacular such as the old King James version. Another reason is perhaps they are reading it just to get thru it so they can 'check' it off their list of things done for the day without reading it carefully, dwelling on what was read, asking God to illuminate the text more, reviewing the commentary, etc... The BIble isn't meant to be read in a cursory manner...but rather it is meant to be read to absorb its truth particularly how it relates to our daily life and relationship to the Creator. Ive been a Christ Follower for a few decades now and when I read a certain passage that ive perhaps read a few times before....I still get an awakening to the message in the text. This is Gods spirit quickening the heart so it becomes living and sharper than a two edged sword . The Bible is and can be proved to be supernatural in origin and if people would take the time, energy, and give honor toward it....they might receive the blessing which so many Christians do get from studying it.

I look forward to hearing a bit more about your disappointments when you were part of a Christian Community . Thanks.

 

[ChesterKhan]

Hi Chester, ok, with NightOwl's blessing, let's begin. What would you say to trying to find as much common ground first as I believe there is more of that than you might imagine.

That would be a good way to begin. And your first post to the OP was mostly good, so I don't think that should be too difficult.

Also, we won't waste each other's time going round and round because we think we are on different pages when we really aren't.

And how!

How about we start by defining what "Free Will" is (generally speaking) and see if we are together on that one. My definition of free will is this, "the ability to choose according to our strongest inclination/desire at the moment we are making a choice".

Does that definition work for you?

Yours and His,
David

I do not think I entirely agree with this definition. For if that were the definition, I would never choose to fast, abstain, or sometimes even pray. Sometimes I use my free will to do things that defy stronger desires and inclinations.

As I understand it, free will simply is "the ability to choose something, even in spite of rationality, appetite, goodness, or anything else".

In other words, free will is what gives us the ability to have disciplined soldiers, athletes, scientists, and clerics. But it is also what gives us the ability to have anarchists, political prisoners and rebels, serial killers, rapists, and mad dictators. It begins with a choice, that can become a habit over time.

 

[St_Worm2]

I do not think I entirely agree with this definition. For if that were the definition, I would never choose to fast, abstain, or sometimes even pray. Sometimes I use my free will to do things that defy stronger desires and inclinations.

Ahh, but isn't that exactly why you make the difficult choices you do, because making that choice (let's say choosing to do what you know would please God rather than choosing to go with what is most pleasurable at that moment) has actually become the more important/strongest desire within you? You continue:

As I understand it, free will simply is "the ability to choose something, even in spite of rationality, appetite, goodness, or anything else".

Choices that are "random", IOW, that have no determining factor at all, is how the "world" defines "free will" to be sure, but is that correct, even for them .. Their god may be their "appetites" (I know mine was before becoming a Christian), but even a (let's say) happily married atheist will choose according to his strongest inclination, wont he? Let's say that this guy finds himself in a situation out of town with a beautiful younger woman coming on to him and he REALLY wants to act upon her offer, but he doesn't! Why didn't he do that? Because as overwhelming as his desire might have been to spend the night with this other woman, his love and respect for his wife and their relationship was actually his strongest desire.

Does that make sense?

--David

 

[ChesterKhan]

Ahh, but isn't that exactly why you make the difficult choices you do, because making that choice (let's say choosing to do what you know would please God rather than choosing to go with what is most pleasurable at that moment) has actually become the more important/strongest desire within you?

Intellectually, perhaps, though not necessarily. Instinctively, definitely not.

Choices that are "random", IOW, that have no determining factor at all, is

If I had not thought about it, I probably would have said just that. But I did think, and that is why I said, "As I understand it, free will simply is 'the ability to choose something, even in spite of rationality, appetite, goodness, or anything else' ". The underlined words change the meaning.

Perhaps I should be clearer, because now I know I can be:

"[Free will] is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach. "

In short, appetite may play a role. But very often it does not. For if it did, all men ought only to follow their appetites to find God. But not all men have, and our appetites are very often distorted by our surrounding culture, and very often our appetites must change before our free will can act with our appetites.

But the subjective reason always plays a role in free will. A man cannot make a choice if he knows nothing, has experienced nothing, and has no intuitions. But he can follow any of these willingly, or defy them, so long as he has one of them. And usually he has many things he knows, many intuitions, many experiences. So free will often has much fuel that can oppose the appetites.

but even a (let's say) happily married atheist will choose according to his strongest inclination, wont he?

Let's say that this guy finds himself in a situation with a beautiful you woman coming on to him and he REALLY wants to act upon her offer, but he doesn't. Why did he do that? Because as overwhelming as his desire might have been to spend the night with this other woman, his love and respect for his wife and their relationship was actually his strongest desire.

And what happens when his wife is a cranky, ugly b**** he married because she got pregnant, and that's what you did back in those days when you got someone pregnant, the kids are loudmouthed, disobedient, messy and difficult to bear, his house is a dump in the middle of a ghetto, and frankly, his life is a catastrophe?

If he has excellent control and reason, he will still not "tap that", even though it may be the best thing to happen to him in his life up to that point, because even though he has no "appetite" for his family, his house, or his otherwise lousy life, he will discern that it would be wrong, for he made a promise. And even though God has forsaken him, and woman and child, too (so he feels), and even he does not want to be honourable. Yet honesty is more important to him.

I think I am getting hung up on the word "appetite", which to me implies a thoughtless, intuitive desire or craving. But a lot of things are not craved, and yet still chosen. I do not "crave" to go to Mass sometimes. But I do, because I know it to be good for me, for there I meet God in the Scriptures, in the Blessed Sacrament (even if I daydream half the way through), and in the priest. It is good to be with God, and to seek His presence in your life, and to seek to be with Him forever and ever. Amen. But that does not mean I would not rather, sometimes, just sleep in. And I do, sometimes. And in that case the appetites of sleep take ahold of me. But not always.

Sometimes something higher than carnal appetites drive the will.

Peace, David.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi Chester, I believe we are on the same page on this, or close enough. Looking at one of your examples you said that on a certain Sunday, your desire to be at church, for whatever reason, overrides your desire to sleep, and you go to church (acting upon your strongest inclination at the moment of decision). The following Sunday, you stay up a little later on Saturday night and your desire to sleep overrides your desire to go to church. Again, you acted upon your greatest desire and stayed in bed. Your greatest desire each Sunday determined your course of action for that day.

Our wills are free when we are able to act upon our strongest inclination. IOW, what we choose to do in a given moment is determined by our greatest desire in that same moment.

Again, I think we are saying basically the same thing, though I don't believe we were free from certain presuppositions that colored this conversation from the start. That's ok, those will eventually reveal themselves to us and we'll deal with them accordingly (as will whatever differences we have concerning the definition of free will).

Next, let's talk about how are free will has been affected by the Fall.

Yours and His,
David

 

[ChesterKhan]

Hi Chester, I believe we are on the same page on this, or close enough. Looking at one of your examples you said that on a certain Sunday, your desire to be at church, for whatever reason, overrides your desire to sleep, and you go to church (acting upon your strongest inclination at the moment of decision). The following Sunday, you stay up a little later on Saturday night and your desire to sleep overrides your desire to go to church. Again, you acted upon your greatest desire and stayed in bed. Your greatest desire each Sunday determined your course of action for that day.

I don't know how to explain it, but, no, I don't believe we are on the same page. Sometimes the will to go to Mass (to clarify, on a weekday - I almost never miss Sunday Mass) is very weak, compared to my desire to go to Mass, which is very strong. Or do you think someone else would know my desires in the wee hours of the morning better than me?

But I choose to go to Mass, not because I desire it more, but because, intellectually, I know it to be the right thing to do.

I swear there are also times when two desires - such as a desire to go to bed and a desire to do unspeakable things on the computer - seem evenly matched. But I choose one and not the other. Have you ever heard of "Buridan's donkey"? If will only depended upon desire, whatever you may consider desire, intellectual or carnal, the donkey will starve. And I would never get to bed because I would never decide.

No, even desire, even the loftiest of intellectual desires, like "agape", that lovely Greek word for self-sacrificing love, must be defiable for free will to truly be free.

How else to we explain Satan, who had perfect knowledge and perfect control of his passions and abilities, who still chose to defy God Almighty, whom he perfectly well knew? How else are we to explain Adam and Eve, who "walked with" God, and yet chose to disobey the single, solitary, incredibly easy order God gave?

"Our wills are free when we are able to act upon our strongest inclination." Perhaps. But they truly are free when we have no inclination whatsoever. To quote, as emphasis, The Screwtape Letters:

Our cause is never more in danger than when a human, no longer desiring, but still intending, to do our Enemy's will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys.

I've had moments like that. Have you?

Again, I think we are saying basically the same thing, though I don't believe we were free from certain presuppositions that colored this conversation from the start. That's ok, those will eventually reveal themselves to us and we'll deal with them accordingly (as will whatever differences we have concerning the definition of free will).

Next, let's talk about how are free will has been affected by the Fall.

Yours and His,
David

If you really think we're on the same page, ah, just ask this again. I'm not so sure. But then again, I'm young, inexperienced in peaceful dialogue, and quite outspoken. And somewhat unsure of myself.

So if you don't really see anything that contradicts your way of thinking, just let me know, and we'll move on.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi Chester, for now, let's move on. Time has become my enemy for the next 10 days or so (my work sometimes gets in the way of my other pursuits, such as posting here .. ).

I'll get back with you later about the freedom of our wills and what my exact position is on it. Perhaps I'm mistaken in believing what I do, but more than likely I've done a lousy job explaining what I believe because my mind had been elsewhere unfortunately .. I do believe we are still approaching things from different points of view (though what we mean may be closer to the same thing than you think).

I've gotta get back to work right now, but I'll get back to this asap.

Yours and His,
David
p.s. - I truly appreciate "peaceful" dialog. I think our Lord does too .. We are Christians, after all, and the only "Bible" some may ever read. I always think it best to act like brothers in Christ should act, even if I get steamed (patience being the main "ingredient" in love .. or so 1 Corinthians 13:4 seems to indicate anyway). Of course, I am approaching 60, so staying calm should be something that comes a little more naturally for me than for someone in their 20's. I always try to remember the qualifying phrase at the end of 1 Peter 3:15, whether I'm talking to non-C's or Christians, while also remembering how many non-Christians are reading my posts. I will admit to my shame however, it doesn't always work ..

 

[South Bound]

Hello,

I am not a Christian

Then why do you have an icon that says you're a Christian?

I believe the bible is very literal and rather simple in terms of what it wants out of people. I believe there is to much of a case with people of picking and choosing what they want to follow.

You mean like the way you cherry picked an out of context verse to say you shouldn't judge, but then completely ignore the Bible's many verses instructing us to judge?

 

[NightWolf]

Then why do you have an icon that says you're a Christian?

Trying to increase your post count?

If you would have read this thread you would know why.

You mean like the way you cherry picked an out of context verse to say you shouldn't judge, but then completely ignore the Bible's many verses instructing us to judge?

So you say the bible instructs us not to judge, then turn around and says it's ok? Interesting.

How about posting some verses?

 

[St_Worm2]

Then why do you have an icon that says you're a Christian?

Hi SB, if you read through the thread, you'll find that something wonderful has happened since NightWolf wrote the OP, he has become a Christian ..

 

[South Bound]

So you say the bible instructs us not to judge, then turn around and says it's ok? Interesting.

Where did I ever say the Bible tells us not to judge? I said just the opposite. I said that the Bible says we are to judge.

 

[NightWolf]

Where did I ever say the Bible tells us not to judge? I said just the opposite. I said that the Bible says we are to judge.

Allow me to quote you:

You mean like the way you cherry picked an out of context verse to say you shouldn't judge, but then completely ignore the Bible's many verses instructing us to judge?

You are basically saying here that I picked one verse, while you insinuate that there are verses that make that verse moot. So you therefore are saying, and I will quote me:

So you say the bible instructs us not to judge, then turn around and say it's ok? Interesting.

I will ask again, where does the bible say we are to judge?

 

[St_Worm2]

This might help:

Stop Criticizing - Matthew 7:1-6 (sermon by Dr. John MacArthur - read/listen to it for free)

1 Do not judge so that you will not be judged.
2 For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
3 Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye?
5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
6 Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces. Matthew 7:1-6​

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi Chester, I have not forgotten about our conversation, it is simply going to take a lot more time/effort than I truly have right now. What I might have time for is just addressing some of the points you made in your last post to me, and get back to the other things later.

Let me start by asking you about three of the terms you mentioned. How do you define:

1) Grace
2) Faith
3) Justification​

Let's also talk more about Ephesians 2:8-10. I'll include it here:

8 By grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
10 For we are His masterpiece, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.​

​

Talk to you soon!

--David

 

[ChesterKhan]

Again, I think we are saying basically the same thing, though I don't believe we were free from certain presuppositions that colored this conversation from the start. That's ok, those will eventually reveal themselves to us and we'll deal with them accordingly (as will whatever differences we have concerning the definition of free will).

Next, let's talk about how are free will has been affected by the Fall.

Yours and His,
David

Alright. As this was a question about what you believe, I'd be glad to hear your take.

But here is what the Catholic Church teaches on the subject - or at least what I've picked up:

To begin with, of course, let's talk about what man was before the Fall. Now God made man, both body and soul. One without the other is not a man, but either an animal or a spirit/demon/God (as God the Father is a pure spirit). Both are good. But it is in the soul where man most shares his likeness to God. Before the Fall, man had free will (the ability to choose), reason, self-mastery, and also the passions (or emotions). All these man shares in common with God. Also, man was originally made for communion with God. As it says in Genesis, He "walked in the cool of the day" with them.

Now, when man was tempted, what was it he did? The chief sin of the first man and the first woman, at its heart, is a killing of trust in God, whom we depend upon for everything, to be replaced with supreme trust in mankind. As St. Maximus the Confessor wrote: man wanted to "be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God".

The consequences, as you well know, were catastrophic. Death entered the world, especially for man, who in so many ways became dead. First is the obvious, physical death. Death to God, man's purpose and entire dependency in life, is most important. Death to others - i.e, selfishness - is part of that, too. All these are summed up in the word "sin" - the inclination toward evil, which only is this: to not live for and choose to live for God above all other things.

We call the marring of the soul that Adam and Eve first did "original sin", and all souls born of men are marred in this way since that time (with two exceptions: Our Lord Jesus Christ, of course, and the Blessed Virgin Mary - but this latter is another story). That is, they are predisposed, though not completely, to sin. It must also be noted only Adam and Eve are guilty of original sin. We cannot be, for we played no part in their personal sin. We merely inherited it.

Original sin is like, though it is not a perfect analogy, a crack baby. He is not complicit in his mother's addiction. Yet he also inherits its harmful effects. And he also is liable to death without treatment.

In short, the Fall inflicted upon mankind ignorance (whereas we once had reason), and slavery to our emotions (whereas our emotions were once subject to control and reason), as well as concupiscence, or an inclination to evil.

That being said, we did not completely lose control, reason, or any inclination to good. For if we had, we should be like Satan and the angels of darkness, who made a choice to reject God that destroyed their inclination to good completely and irrevocably, whereas baptism erases concupiscence, death, and slavery in the human soul. Satan can and will never repent. We can, if we will to.

This brings us to the first point of TULIP: Total depravity, or total inability. According to Calvinists (if I understand correctly), this is the utter and complete inability of man to do good or to be good without baptism. Without God, man is irredeemably wicked.

This is not completely off; man is certainly wicked! But man is still a natural creation, and therefore "good" in the eyes of God, who made all things good. The Catholic Church would say it is obvious man is redeemable even in original sin. (Or why would God redeem Him?) Man still desires to do good and is capable of doing natural good without God's grace, though it is much more difficult. For the Old Testament, long before the New Covenant, names many men as righteous before God. Indeed, Christ took on the flesh of men. Now good and evil cannot coexist in God, for God is only good.

In short, if man were totally depraved, how could God make man good? We only know of one sort that is totally depraved: Satan and his angels, and they are irredeemable. Yet men are redeemed. And God Himself, who is all-good, in His Son, became a man while still being God. So man must have some redeemable quality.

 

[South Bound]

Allow me to quote you:

Thank you for quoting me saying precisely the opposite of what you claimed I said.

Your apology is accepted.

 

[South Bound]

Hi SB, if you read through the thread, you'll find that something wonderful has happened since NightWolf wrote the OP, he has become a Christian ..

If you say so.

 

[NightWolf]

Thank you for quoting me saying precisely the opposite of what you claimed I said.

Your apology is accepted.

I never apologized?

I have studied this over night and we still have no right to judge.

In the context I used in the original post, a Christian has no biblical right to say a group of people needs military action as a group and to prescribe them death.

What right a Christian does have, through righteousness, is to discern sin and to notice that sin to help a brother, has no right to broadly judge.

And please, I will ask again, post your defense.

 

[NightWolf]

If you say so.

And yet you judge me...

Please post the verses that give you permission to do this...