An Article on free will

[civic]

God did not die in His divine essence, but the God-Man, Jesus Christ, died in His human nature.

J.

Nope that’s not orthodoxy or biblical. His Person is Divine. He is a single divine person with a human nature. That’s the Incarnation 101.

 

[Johann]

Nope that’s not orthodoxy or biblical. His Person is Divine. He is a single divine person with a human nature. That’s the Incarnation 101.

The divine nature (θεότης, theotēs) is eternal, immortal, and impassible (1 Timothy 1:17; Romans 1:23). God cannot die in His divine nature.

But the Son of God, who is God incarnate, truly died in his human nature, not as a separate person, but as the one Christ who is both divine and human.

J.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I’m not here to criticize anyone, but it seems there may be some pride surfacing that’s worth gently reflecting on..

J.

Criticism is essential to serving God. People don't change without being humbled. This requires criticism. Criticism comes from reasoning and from knowing the Truth. No one wants to be told they're wrong.

I do. I want to be told I'm wrong and shown that I'm wrong.

Pro 9:8 Do not reprove a mocker or he will hate you; reprove a wise person and he will love you.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The divine nature (θεότης, theotēs) is eternal, immortal, and impassible (1 Timothy 1:17; Romans 1:23). God cannot die in His divine nature.

But the Son of God, who is God incarnate, truly died in his human nature, not as a separate person, but as the one Christ who is both divine and human.

J.

Are humans by natural sinful creatures?

 

[brightfame52]

Yes.

I agree

 

[praise_yeshua]

Nope that’s not orthodoxy or biblical. His Person is Divine. He is a single divine person with a human nature. That’s the Incarnation 101.

Few can actually establish this. I know you can but I realized a long time ago that people just don't want to know the intricate nature of the Incarnation/Trinity.

The writer of Hebrews spoke of how Christ "tasted death" or rather "experienced death". From the very moment Christ was conceived in the womb of Mary, He began to experience death. It wasn't just "Calvary".

He entered "the world" of the "womb" of Mary. It is amazing how the womb of a woman is very much like our planet. This is exactly when Christ was made "lower than the angels"

 

[praise_yeshua]

The divine nature (θεότης, theotēs) is eternal, immortal, and impassible (1 Timothy 1:17; Romans 1:23). God cannot die in His divine nature.

But the Son of God, who is God incarnate, truly died in his human nature, not as a separate person, but as the one Christ who is both divine and human.

J.

I think you're resisting this teaching because of how you view death. Faith sees death differently than those that have no hope.

The Scriptures deal with this in the context of how birth is traumatic but soon forgotten......

Joh 16:21 A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world.
Joh 16:22 And ye now therefore have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you.

 

[Kermos]

You still ignore the connection between impart and infuse

You totally ignored this showing the connection between impart and infuse

View attachment 1701

Now let's look at the definition of infuse

To cause a person to become filled with a certain quality or principle

That matches your interpretation of Eph 2:8.

Where God causes man to be filled with faith.

Your theology teaches an infused faith.
and simply repeating your interpretation does nothing at all to prove your interpretation


John Calvin: “People who infer from this passage that faith is God’s gift are mistaken, for Christ does not show here what God produces in us, but what God wants and requires from us.” (The Crossway Classic Commentaries: John; Crossway Books; Wheaton, IL; 1994, p.393)



This is the work of God. This is the thing that will be acceptable to God, or which you are to do in order to be saved. Jesus did not tell them they had nothing to do, or that they were to sit down and wait, but that there was a work to perform, and that was a duty that was imperative. It was to believe on the Messiah. This is the work which sinners are to do; and doing this they will be saved, for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth, Ro. 10:4.11 Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament: Luke & John (ed. Robert Frew; London: Blackie & Son, 1884–1885), 244.



Believe. Faith is put as a moral act or work. The work of God is to believe. Faith includes all the works which God requires. The Jews’ question contemplates numerous works. Jesus’ answer directs them to one work. Canon Westcott justly observes that “this simple formula contains the complete solution of the relation of faith and works.”11 Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (vol. 2; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887), 148–149.



The meaning is not,—that faith is wrought in us by God, is the work of God; but that the truest way of working the work of God is to believe on Him whom He hath sent.11 Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary (vol. 1; Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976), 761.



Messianic work.

28. τί ποιῶμεν …; What must we do (v. 5) that we may work? Perhaps they understood Him to mean that they must earn what they desire; certainly they see that Christ’s words have a moral meaning; they must do the works required by God. But how?

29. τὸ ἔργον. They probably thought of works of the law, tithes, sacrifices, &c. He tells them of one work, one moral act, from which all the rest derive their value, continuous belief (πιστεύητε, not πιστεύσητε) in Him whom God has sent. Comp. Acts 16:31. On ἵνα and ἀπέστειλεν see on 1:8, 33, 4:47, 17:3.1

1 A. Plummer, The Gospel according to S. John (Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896), 155.



τὰ ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ must not be taken to mean ‘the works which God works,’ but, as in Jer. 48:10 (31:10 LXX): 1 Cor. 15:58, the works well pleasing to God.11 Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary (vol. 1; Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976), 760–761.



Ἀπεκρίθη … καὶ εἶπεν 1:21, 50; 2:18. Jesus contrasts the one “work” that God actually requires (τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ)—namely (epex. ἵνα), constant belief (πιστεύητε, pres. subjunc.) in his accredited messenger—with the many “works” the Jews imagined God demanded11 Murray J. Harris, John (Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament; B&H Academic, 2015), 131.



The Lord deals with the error and the truth in the question which was put to Him. In the one work which God requires of man and man owes to God, all fragmentary and partial works are included. It is a true work as answering to man’s will, but it issues in that which is not a work. This is the work of God, that ye believe on … Comp. 1 John 3:23 (his commandment).11 Brooke Foss Westcott and Arthur Westcott, eds., The Gospel according to St. John Introduction and Notes on the Authorized Version (Classic Commentaries on the Greek New Testament; London: J. Murray, 1908), 101.



29 Jesus replaces their "works of God" with the singular "work of God." But one thing is needful. And this one thing, he makes plain, is faith. They must believe on him (for the construction see on 1:12; the present tense here denotes the continuing attitude, not the once-for-all decision). In view of the controversy over faith and works reflected in the Epistle of James, it is interesting to find Jesus describing "work" as believing: God does not require that we pile up merits to obtain a heavenly credit. He requires that we trust him. The "work of God" means that which God requires of us. New international commentary of the New Testament



Yeshua-Jesus is telling them how to receive eternal life. The people then ask Yeshua-Jesus, [57]“What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” The response of the people is referring to how they can work and receive eternal life which is salvation. Yeshua-Jesus sets the record straight by answering, [58]“This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” In other words, Yeshua-Jesus tells them that if they want to do the works of God for eternal life then believe in him who God sent. That is the work needed for salvation, believe him, Yeshua-Jesus. Yeshua-Jesus did not tell them that the works of God are only for those who are chosen or elected. Then the people, they want to see a sign so that they can believe in him.



John 6:30 (KJV 1900) — 30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee?



Garza, Dr. Al. Calvinism Challenged: How The Hebrew Bible, Jewish Sources, Jesus, The Apostles and Paul Refute Calvinism. . Sefer Press Publishing. Kindle Edition.

The love of Christ controls us Christians (2 Corinthians 5:14), so that I believe in Him whom He has sent is the work of God (the Word of God, John 6:29). Praise God for God's wonderful blessing poured out inside of us!!!

Your personally highly-favored approved repeated interpretation of "People who infer from this passage that faith is God’s gift are mistaken, for Christ does not show here what God produces in us, but what God wants and requires from us" results in your non-Word of God "This is the work of man and this is not the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent" (TomL 6:29), so you reject the love of Christ controls us and you do not receive Christ's precious, precise, perfect, and pure sayings “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent” (John 6:29).

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't hold to the RCC or any Catholic's teachings and according to the Jewish customs and cultures a young boy at age 13 is Bar Mitzvah and a girl at age 12.

Bar Mitzvah literally means “son of the commandment” (Aramaic: בר מצוה), indicating that the boy is now morally and legally responsible for observing the commandments (mitzvot) of the Torah.

You won't find infant baptism in Scripture and have to rely on the ECF's and their interpretation.

And don't assume about my position re infants. I'm not a Calvinist but you are "Calvin bashing" others.

J.

Let's make this clear J....
If you believe that we are born with Adam's sin,,,an unbiblical belief,,,
then you must also agree that babies are born with that sin already on soul/spirit.
IF a baby is born with sin already accounted to him and he dies,,,he will go to hell.

This is consistent with your belief that men are born GUILTY of Adam's sin...
which they are not, of course.

 

[GodsGrace]

That argument comes from the grammatical construct of ancient Hebrew. I don't believe anyone knows the Biblical Hebrew of Moses enough to substantiate that argument. Such is lost to humanity.

Such an argument can't come from Greek. The narrative will not allow for it.

Which matches the context/concept of an Eternal God. Man isn't the center of God's Universe. Such silly theology needs to be thrown the trash can of cultish beliefs.

Yes. The grammatical construct is directly from the Hebrew.
There are scholars who know Hebrew, and even teach it, that believe the translation I've given.
But no matter...at the TIME that GOD BEGAN TO CREATE
for us
IT IS THE BEGINNING.

So IN THE BEGINNING is just fine and acceptable.
The other construct, however, does allow for God to take the time HE wants to create,
and it would reject the fundamentalist idea that the earth is 6 thousand years old.

 

[GodsGrace]

While I appreciate what you say re "the other member" I want to leave you with this before signing off.

Historical Development of Original Sin in Christian Theology
Early Church Period (1st-4th centuries)
The earliest Christian writers didn't have a fully developed doctrine of original sin. While they acknowledged the universality of sin and death following Adam's disobedience, they generally emphasized human free will.

Justin Martyr (c.100-165) and Irenaeus (c.130-202) viewed Adam's sin as bringing death and a propensity toward sin, but not direct guilt. Irenaeus developed an influential "recapitulation theory," seeing Christ as a "second Adam" who reversed Adam's disobedience.
Clement of Alexandria (c.150-215) and Origen (c.185-254) acknowledged Adam's sin affected humanity but emphasized individual moral responsibility and freedom.

Augustine and the Pelagian Controversy (4th-5th centuries)
The doctrine became more formalized through Augustine of Hippo (354-430), who developed a comprehensive theory of original sin during his debates with Pelagius. Augustine argued:

Adam's sin corrupted human nature itself
All humans were "seminally present" in Adam when he sinned
Sin is transmitted through procreation (sometimes linked to concupiscence)
Humanity becomes a "mass of perdition" deserving condemnation
Divine grace is necessary for salvation

Pelagius rejected this view, maintaining that:

Adam's sin affected humanity only as a bad example
Each person is born free from sin with full ability to obey God
Humans can attain salvation through moral effort

The Church condemned Pelagianism at the Council of Carthage (418) and Council of Ephesus (431), largely affirming Augustine's position.

Medieval Development (6th-15th centuries)
Gregory the Great (540-604) and other early medieval theologians generally maintained Augustine's framework.
Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) refined the concept, distinguishing between original sin as the absence of original righteousness and actual sin as personal wrongdoing.

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) further systematized the doctrine, viewing original sin primarily as the deprivation of original justice rather than a positive evil quality. He maintained that original sin was transmitted through natural generation.
Reformation Era (16th century)
Martin Luther (1483-1546) and John Calvin (1509-1564) revitalized and intensified Augustine's emphasis on humanity's total depravity resulting from Adam's sin. Calvin particularly emphasized:

Adam's sin rendered humanity utterly corrupt
Original sin affects every aspect of human nature
Humans inherit both guilt and corruption from Adam
Salvation comes exclusively through divine grace

The Council of Trent (1545-1563) solidified the Catholic position, affirming that original sin:

Is transmitted by propagation, not imitation
Is inherent in each person
Can be removed through baptism
Leaves concupiscence (tendency toward sin) even after baptism

Modern Developments (17th-21st centuries)

The doctrine continued to evolve with different emphases:
Liberal Theology (19th century): Focused on sin as social and moral failings rather than an inherited condition.

Neo-orthodoxy (20th century): Karl Barth and others reinterpreted original sin through existential and relational lenses rather than biological transmission.

Contemporary Catholic theology: Has increasingly emphasized social dimensions of sin while maintaining the tradition of original sin.

Liberation Theology: Has reconceptualized original sin in terms of systemic injustice and oppressive structures.
Throughout this development, Eastern Orthodox Christianity maintained its own distinctive understanding, focusing more on the inheritance of mortality and corruption rather than inherited guilt, and emphasizing theosis (deification) as the remedy.


"The Oxford Handbook of Original Sin" edited by Jesse Couenhoven
"Original Sin: A Cultural History" by Alan Jacobs
"The Doctrine of Original Sin" by Henri Blocher
"Original Sin: Illuminating the Riddle" by Henri Blocher
"Original Sin: A Study in American Theology and Culture" by Joseph Haroutunian
"Adam, the Fall, and Original Sin: Theological, Biblical, and Scientific Perspectives" edited by Hans Madueme and Michael Reeves

These sources contain detailed accounts of the historical development of the doctrine with proper citations and references. For free online resources, you might consider checking academic theological journals through resources like JSTOR or university theological departments that publish their materials online.

And then, of course, there's Utley--

https://www.freebiblecommentary.org/ years of in-depth studies and a fully downloadable software with thousands of video and mp3's.
Free, gratis, nada. You can also get it from e Sword free.
View attachment 1717
Maybe this will edify others.

Shalom.

J.

I used the expression THE OTHER MEMBER in referring to you because you stated that you didn't care about my opinion...so why get you involved?

As you know, there's no way I'm going to read all of the above.
For 2 reasons:

1. Nothing in the NT can be this difficult to understand - or the OT for that matter.
2. You should know by now that I don't care to follow writers, preachers, teachers, etc.

I follow Jesus and HIS teachings.
I use the bible for my support system.

I like Utley,,,but I will NOT base my Christian theology on HIM.
If I need MEN to clarify anything, it will be those men that were taught by the Apostles.

If you care to discuss, that's fine with me, but it WILL have to be in a more simple way and using scripture.

 

[civic]

I don't hold to the RCC or any Catholic's teachings and according to the Jewish customs and cultures a young boy at age 13 is Bar Mitzvah and a girl at age 12.

Bar Mitzvah literally means “son of the commandment” (Aramaic: בר מצוה), indicating that the boy is now morally and legally responsible for observing the commandments (mitzvot) of the Torah.

You won't find infant baptism in Scripture and have to rely on the ECF's and their interpretation.

And don't assume about my position re infants. I'm not a Calvinist but you are "Calvin bashing" others.

J.

The “ Trinity” Hypostatic Union are “ Catholic “ doctrines , teachings and I don’t mean Catholic as in universal but particular as in the Catholic Church , Roman Catholic Church.

hope this helps !!!

 

[praise_yeshua]

Yes. The grammatical construct is directly from the Hebrew.
There are scholars who know Hebrew, and even teach it, that believe the translation I've given.
But no matter...at the TIME that GOD BEGAN TO CREATE
for us
IT IS THE BEGINNING.

So IN THE BEGINNING is just fine and acceptable.
The other construct, however, does allow for God to take the time HE wants to create,
and it would reject the fundamentalist idea that the earth is 6 thousand years old.

Our beginning is different than all beginnings. Many things have a beginning that is before OUR beginning. The context of Genesis is the beginnings of mankind.

No one alive today really knows the Hebrew of Moses. They will tell you they know it but it nothing more than conjecture. I'll be glad to discuss this with you. It is good to know. Hebrew was mixed with the various languages of mankind a very long time ago. What survives today are from people that hate God. Ancient Hebrews that loved and looked for Messiah wrote the Greek OT. The sources you're referencing love the narrative you're believing. That is why it is there. Powerful people have avoided the Greek OT for centuries. Such has given rise to this "idea" that "Hebrew" as it is today is superior to all the languages of the earth. It is not. Not even close. There are many fake "idioms" associated with such teachings. Whenever you approach these people with the difficulty of their language, they always come up with a new "idiom" of sorts to explain away God's words.

It is a very impactful "plague" upon the study of the Scriptures. I've been battling it for a long time now. It is usually a short conversation. I know where to "hit them" with their contradictions.

Jesus said.... "In the beginning it was not so". He does this in context to Adam and Eve. Jesus with how Moses allowed divorce in the law.

Mar 10:5 And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’
Mar 10:7 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,
Mar 10:8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.
Mar 10:9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Do you realize that Moses died for these hard headed people. Moses got angry with these people and called the "rebels". Moses learned what it is to have to lead a group of independent minds. You have "independence" everywhere in this life. We should recognize it as such.

We are to be "of one mind"..... That mind is the mind of Jesus Christ. Without this, trust nothing.

 

[Selah]

Yes. The grammatical construct is directly from the Hebrew.
There are scholars who know Hebrew, and even teach it, that believe the translation I've given.
But no matter...at the TIME that GOD BEGAN TO CREATE
for us
IT IS THE BEGINNING.

So IN THE BEGINNING is just fine and acceptable.
The other construct, however, does allow for God to take the time HE wants to create,
and it would reject the fundamentalist idea that the earth is 6 thousand years old.

I believe the earth is billions and billions of years old. Consider the dinosaurs of old. What say you?

 

[Johann]

The “ Trinity” Hypostatic Union are “ Catholic “ doctrines , teachings and I don’t mean Catholic as in universal but particular as in the Catholic Church , Roman Catholic Church.

hope this helps !!!

As for traditions-let me be clear, I don’t bash Catholics or Calvinists. We’re all part of the same body, united in Christ Jesus, not by labels but by faith in Him.

That said, you've just agreed with @Dizerner in affirming that God died on the cross-a serious claim. Referring to the God-Man in this way risks implying a rupture within the Triune Godhead, which Scripture never teaches.

We must tread carefully here to uphold the mystery of the incarnation without dividing the indivisible nature of the Trinity.

J.

 

[Johann]

I used the expression THE OTHER MEMBER in referring to you because you stated that you didn't care about my opinion...so why get you involved?

As you know, there's no way I'm going to read all of the above.
For 2 reasons:

1. Nothing in the NT can be this difficult to understand - or the OT for that matter.
2. You should know by now that I don't care to follow writers, preachers, teachers, etc.

I follow Jesus and HIS teachings.
I use the bible for my support system.

I like Utley,,,but I will NOT base my Christian theology on HIM.
If I need MEN to clarify anything, it will be those men that were taught by the Apostles.

If you care to discuss, that's fine with me, but it WILL have to be in a more simple way and using scripture.

I work with the Scriptures-what's your point?

J.

 

[Kermos]

Yes, we are born sinless into this world. God did not give anyone a spirit dead in sin.

Yet, no one is born good, save the Christ, for the Christ of us Christians declares No one is good except God alone (Mark 10:18), so Adam was evil, even before the tree of the knowledge of good and evil hit his lips, even while it was in his hand but 2 centimeters away from his open mouth as he prepared to eat.

Post #8,155 shows the Truth (John 14:6) that Adam was evil before he ate of the tree.

Adam was evil before he ate (Genesis 3:6), and Adam became a sinner at the time he ate (Romans 5:12).

It is written "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me" (Psalm 51:5).

 

[Johann]

Adam was evil before he ate (Genesis 3:6), and Adam became a sinner at the time he ate (Romans 5:12).

This is stretching it a bit too far.

Adam was created in the image of God, without sin, and with the freedom to obey or disobey.
He was morally upright, rational, and spiritually responsive--
His fall came through external temptation and willful disobedience, not from an inner evil nature.

Gen 3:6 When [Or “And”] the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes, and the tree was desirable to make one wise, then [Or “and”] she took from its fruit and she ate. And she gave it also to her husband with her, and he ate.
Gen 3:7 Then [Or “And”] the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed together fig leaves and they made for themselves coverings.
.
And this right here is where you have to admit human volition-not free will.

J.

 

[GodsGrace]

Our beginning is different than all beginnings. Many things have a beginning that is before OUR beginning. The context of Genesis is the beginnings of mankind.

I agree that Genesis (first 3 paragraphs) were written as an explanation to the Hebrews as to where they "came from". The same question atheists ask themselves today, and even some Christians that have not read the bible too much.

No one alive today really knows the Hebrew of Moses. They will tell you they know it but it nothing more than conjecture. I'll be glad to discuss this with you. It is good to know. Hebrew was mixed with the various languages of mankind a very long time ago. What survives today are from people that hate God. Ancient Hebrews that loved and looked for Messiah wrote the Greek OT

Are you saying that Hebrew today is different from the Hebrew in OT times?
I know someone who reads the bible in both Hebrew and Greek (he's a scholar)...
is he reading in the modern language?
I've never considered this.

The sources you're referencing love the narrative you're believing.

Why do you think they love the narrative I've explained?
Are you a fundamentalist believer and find this understanding to be against what YOU believe,
or is it just not acceptable to you?

That is why it is there. Powerful people have avoided the Greek OT for centuries. Such has given rise to this "idea" that "Hebrew" as it is today is superior to all the languages of the earth. It is not. Not even close. There are many fake "idioms" associated with such teachings. Whenever you approach these people with the difficulty of their language, they always come up with a new "idiom" of sorts to explain away God's words.

Do you place value in the Greek OT?
I really do not.
Every time a language is translated, something is lost.
So to go from Hebrew-------> Greek-------->English, is just too many steps.

It is a very impactful "plague" upon the study of the Scriptures. I've been battling it for a long time now. It is usually a short conversation. I know where to "hit them" with their contradictions.

Jesus said.... "In the beginning it was not so". He does this in context to Adam and Eve. Jesus with how Moses allowed divorce in the law.

Mar 10:5 And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’
Mar 10:7 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,
Mar 10:8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.
Mar 10:9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Yes,,,I've always understood Jesus to mean at the time of Adam and Eve.
Did I give a different impression?
Maybe I didn't explain myself properly.

Do you realize that Moses died for these hard headed people. Moses got angry with these people and called the "rebels". Moses learned what it is to have to lead a group of independent minds. You have "independence" everywhere in this life. We should recognize it as such.

We are to be "of one mind"..... That mind is the mind of Jesus Christ. Without this, trust nothing.

The above 2 paragraphs are pretty much how I feel about Protestantism today.
I see problems in all denominations.
I've become non-denominational.

 

[GodsGrace]

I believe the earth is billions and billions of years old. Consider the dinosaurs of old. What say you?

I agree.
The earth is about 3.5 billion years old.

This has nothing to do with Genesis which explains THE BEGINNING.
It doesn't state when that beginning was.

Those that believe the earth is 6 thousand years old use generations stated in the bible to do this.
This does not go back to the "beginning" but when God created man in HIS image.

I make no claim to really understand this.