Isa. 14 and Ezk. 28

[Molly]

Free will example:


12 "All right, you may test him," the Lord said to Satan. "Do whatever you want with everything he possesses, but don't harm him physically." So Satan left the Lord's presence.  --Job 1

[micah7:9]

Free will example:


12 "All right, you may test him," the Lord said to Satan. "Do whatever you want with everything he possesses, but don't harm him physically." So Satan left the Lord's presence.  --Job 1

Right there in the "whatever" lay choices and options. And the Lord CAUSED that. Choices are abundant all day long, but there must be a cause for the choice made.

[micah7:9]

I'm with Micah on this one. If we are not 100% free to override the will of God then we aren't really free - thank GOD!!

I agree.  Any limits at all, IMO, takes away total freedom.  Also, IMO, "free will" is a silly term when trying to explain how man's will operates either in contrast to, or in accord with, God's  will.   :2c:  Does He require and allow choices?  Of course.  It's how we learn and grow into maturity in Him - as we learn that all's best when our will is submitted to His.  Another  :2c:.   :bigGrin:

Into my pouch  :2c: and raise  :2c: :dsunny:

[micah7:9]

Oops. What happened to lucifer? I believe that Reformer said it well. I believe that there was a reason, don't know what reason, for the translators sticking the word lucifer in Ezk. 28 just like the translators, for whatever reason, would not translate the word hell properly for what it is. It is very difficult discussing the Bible and witnessing with all the theological theories that have been established and sold/taught by denominations.  :sigh:

[jabcat]

I had someone once tell me "free will" was in the Bible, and showed me where. One reference is "they gave a freewill offering", or "they gave freely".   I believe any such references, in some translations, are saying the person in question did something of their choosing, not at that time being coerced or made to do it - not that it's a proof point that man somehow has total "free will".  I personally believe that's mis-using a couple of references to make an otherwise scripturally unsustainable point.   :2c:  I'm not saying man doesn't have some freedom of choice - but I don't believe it's total, or that even in our most deprived state, that our will is totally free to completely operate against God's will.  Otherwise, I'd really like to be able to fly like a bird.   :myahoo:

[jabcat]

Oops. What happened to lucifer? I believe that Reformer said it well. I believe that there was a reason, don't know what reason, for the translators sticking the word lucifer in Ezk. 28 just like the translators, for whatever reason, would not translate the word hell properly for what it is. It is very difficult discussing the Bible and witnessing with all the theological theories that have been established and sold/taught by denominations.  :sigh:

You're right.  Bump the OP. :)    :hijacked:  I haven't looked - was it by the person who started the thread  :laugh:, or someone else?  Doesn't matter - thread starter has requested back on topic.   :notworthy:

[jabcat]

Discussion on Will;

http://tentmaker.org/forum/discussions-on-universal-salvation/will/

[ded2daworld]

 molly,
IMO,Since God said Satan couldn't harm Job,Satan's free will stopped where God's will was.
And I contend that Satan was doing God's will thinking it was his free will.
All the time God was merely using Satan. God has always used Satan to acheive his purpose.
If God had ever foreseen Satan doing anything that conflicted with his will, he would have stopped Satan or not have even created him.
We are all created for the purpose of God's will. Some embrace it, most don't and some think that they are "freewilly" embracing it.
Jesus said, "You didn't choose me. I chose you."  :2c:

[eaglesway]

I had someone once tell me "free will" was in the Bible, and showed me where. One reference is "they gave a freewill offering", or "they gave freely".   I believe any such references, in some translations, are saying the person in question did something of their choosing, not at that time being coerced or made to do it - not that it's a proof point that man somehow has total "free will".  I personally believe that's mis-using a couple of references to make an otherwise scripturally unsustainable point.   :2c:  I'm not saying man doesn't have some freedom of choice - but I don't believe it's total, or that even in our most deprived state, that our will is totally free to completely operate against God's will.  Otherwise, I'd really like to be able to fly like a bird.   :myahoo:

Really, when conversing with someone who has a different view than yourself, is the point to impute your meaning on their words? Shouldn't it be to understand what they are saying?

I have no desire to overturn anyone elses opinion. I just desire to express my own. I do not ridicule the opinions of others,not do I expect my perspective to be called "silly" because it does not align with yours.(no offense intended folks :o)

When I say free will, I am juxtiposing it against the "marionette" philosophy that God acts everyone of our acts. This view has been pressed on the site by some- and I have no problem that they see it that way, but I do not. We are not God's "marionettes"- in my opinion. He is teaching us, by allowing us to exercise a limited degree of free will- called "stewardship"- how to align with His will and FLOW WITH HIM.

However the term "Free Will" means only that God has granted us freedom. The glorious freedom of the children of God. It is a term used by theologians conversing from differing points of view for hundreds of years. You think they are all "silly". I think some of them are, some of them aren't. I think the term is not "silly' at all and I do not feel "silly for using it.

It seems to me at some point, since I was only responding to Micah's posts on the "marionette" philosophy of predestination and the creation of evil, that we need to realize that it is glorious that people of all doctrinal persuasio begin to believ in UR, as I do, a proponent of a kind of modified Arminianism- or as some of you do, as Preterists, and modified Calvinists, or WHATEVER :o)

It also astounds me that people can speak of this marionette predestination view over and over but as soon as someone uses the term "free will" it sets of a chain reaction, which I think is evidence of a predisposition towards a certain view as if it were PART AND PARCEL WITH UR- which, in my opinion, it is not :o)

[eaglesway]

For instance, James says "God is not tempted by evil, nor does He tempt any man with evil, but everyman is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed. Lust conceives sin, sin conceives death."

Did God put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden to tempt Adam and Eve.?Did he tell the adversary to tempt them? Would this not be the greatest hypocrisy in the universe to tell Satan to tempt someone then deny that you ever tempted anyone? Perhaps there is something more to the mystery than a simple black or white doctrine from either perspective?

Was James a fool? Is James not scriptural? Was James decieved? Or was James illuminating "AN ASPECT" of a deep mystery not so simply rendered by man's wisdom?

I think these are honest questions asked by many. The TEMPTATION to force people into our simple answers(Arminian, Calvinist, Preterist, Free Will, Sovereign, Whatever, etc) often obscure ELEMENTS OF TRUTH that God wants all sides to receive :o)

[jabcat]

Even though not intended for you, and not directly identifying any specific person's post, I probably shouldn't have said the word "silly".  So no matter what I personally think of the term, I'll rescind the use of the word silly.  My apologies.  That particular post has been taken down. 

[eaglesway]

But by that idea, how can anyone understand any term? I am giving very clear definitions of how I view the term, and it is in common with how thousands of others view it and have viewed it for millenia(not to say I am correct or they were, just to say, it is common for the opposing view to present the other view as ridiculous or untenable or without merit or incomprehensible). The same suppositions can be made of the term "sovereignty" which to some people means God controls every thought and action of every being from the beginning to the end, but to others simply means God will cause all things to work together to accomplish His ultimate plan and purpose. Unless we can discuss those shades of meaning and balance the scales of understanding between extreme views then we are just writing "position papers" to one another- IMO, a complete waste of time.

[eaglesway]

James, no apology is necessary, I am simply presenting a point of view :o) Obviously, I think it has merit- that doesnt make me right :o)     I wasnt "offended" by the word silly- but I do want to stand for what I think is true in an articulate and scriptural fashion - which still doesnt make me right  :laugh:

[reFORMer]

I wanted to write this for a while; but, it doesn't so much belong in this topic, just among a few off topic posts appearing here now.  I think I'll put this post where it belongs as jabcat suggested:
http://tentmaker.org/forum/discussions-on-universal-salvation/will/
______________________________________


I am committed to the belief we make choices that matter and we are judged by the choices we make.  I perceive this as reality and am very frustrated about it at times due to the abundance of possibilities and my own inadequacy.  I recognize the will to be the foremost aspect of the soul.  The power of volition, to commit to a position and continue in it regardless of later developments, to choose to love when it no longer makes any sense and I no longer feel like it: this is what makes marriage a covenant.  I find solace and rest from the fact of God's overriding intentions.  He has graciously revealed Himself as, The Savior of All."  He has decided to overcome evil with good.

Yet, an "uninfluenced choice" is a definition of freewill, and it seems a kind of oxymoron.  Not only is the commitment to something without being affected by anything behind many people's "freewill" doctrine, there must also be added the belief that the less influenced we are by anything the greater is our moral excellence.  Both of these conditions of soul are much worse than their opposites.

To make a choice without being impressed of any difference between options is either foolishness or the choice is regarding trivia.  To be externally sheltered from impressions of relative value and to internally regard everything as irrelevant defines a horrible state of mind, one that is ignorant, spoiled, and without authority, rather than a virtuous man.

Intrinsically and extrinsically:  God is the Significance of All Expression.  We should be persuaded by what is behind the appearances of all things what these things are worth.  As well, things are in a world of relatedness to other things.  God is the Measure of All Relationship.  God is the Standard of All Measure.  God's emanations as a constant define the meaning of things.  As Jesus' disciples, we should be impressed and aroused by what we perceive as important.

[jabcat]

I had someone once tell me "free will" was in the Bible, and showed me where. One reference is "they gave a freewill offering", or "they gave freely".   I believe any such references, in some translations, are saying the person in question did something of their choosing, not at that time being coerced or made to do it - not that it's a proof point that man somehow has total "free will".  I personally believe that's mis-using a couple of references to make an otherwise scripturally unsustainable point.   :2c:  I'm not saying man doesn't have some freedom of choice - but I don't believe it's total, or that even in our most deprived state, that our will is totally free to completely operate against God's will.  Otherwise, I'd really like to be able to fly like a bird.   :myahoo:

is the point to impute your meaning on their words? Shouldn't it be to understand what they are saying?
I do not ridicule the opinions of others,not do I expect my perspective to be called "silly" because it does not align with yours.(no offense intended folks :o)

Although that post was taken down (not the above-quoted one), just to be clear - that post was specifically addressing a term, a figure of speech.  And yes, I think it's important to try and understand what someone is saying (what they really mean); which is why the term "free will" is a bit of a puzzler to me.  :2c:   

a limited degree of free will- called "stewardship

However the term "Free Will" means only that God has granted us freedom.

What I'm understanding is, you personally see "free will" to mean freedom, but then qualified with limits.  I may be wrong, but my suggestion is that the historical use, and when many people today use that term, it's not used as simply meaning 'freedom'.  I believe it's typically a buzz phrase for things like "God doesn't force His will, He's a gentleman, it's up to us, and we can choose to go to hell if we want to", etc.  I even had someone tell me just a couple of days ago, "God expects us to clean ourselves up".

  It is a term used by theologians conversing from differing points of view for hundreds of years. You think they are all "silly".

"  "  my response above, with the addition of - I factually didn't say that I think "they are all silly" - or that anyone or anyone's view is.  I specifically addressed my personal opinion of a term. 

It also astounds me that people can speak of this marionette predestination view over and over but as soon as someone uses the term "free will" it sets of a chain reaction, which I think is evidence of a predisposition towards a certain view as if it were PART AND PARCEL WITH UR- which, in my opinion, it is not :o)

I have an opinion, but can't speak for others. It's obviously anyone's choice to use either term as much as they like if that's what suits them; and it does seem some folks mean varying things by it besides what the words seem to me to literally/actually say.  So that's for each individual.  Me personally?  If someone says "God is sovereign", I amen it.  If someone says "God is all sovereign", I may want to know what they mean by that.  And if they mean God doesn't require and allow man to make any choices and hold him responsible for it, then I'd disagree.  And if someone says "man has free will", I might say "I disagree, man has a will but it's limited - not free".  Maybe it's just me that doesn't understand or like the term, and maybe others love it and believe it describes exactly what they believe.

As my old blind aunt used to say; "as the Bible says, every tub must sit on its own bottom".  Blessings and grace.

[omantodd2000]

Lucifer is the morning star,  the planet Venus Isaiah's description is of the king of Babylon as the fallen morning star cast down from heaven or high places. You must keep it in context to know whom it is referring to, verse 4 is quite clear "4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon".

[jabcat]

Lucifer is the morning star,  the planet Venus Isaiah's description is of the king of Babylon as the fallen morning star cast down from heaven or high places. You must keep it in context to know whom it is referring to, verse 4 is quite clear "4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon".

  :ty:  for getting us back on topic - AGAIN!

[micah7:9]

Just to note because I was the one who used the word ----y at least first.
Re: Isa. 14 and Ezk. 28
« Reply #21 on: January 04, 2013, 09:34:53 AM »
QuoteModifyRemove
Quote from: eaglesway on January 04, 2013, 07:40:41 AM
How I think God "created evil".

"Well, first off, He created them like Himself. So he gave them a free will. He gave them power. He gave them creative intelligence. He gave them the authority to create and to destroy. The right to obey or refuse. And He saw that they would fall, but He planted "eternity in their hearts" so they would always hunger for love. How could they know love unless they experienced hate. How could they fully appreciate the glory of the gift of life unless they could experience the terror of death.  He set it all in motion knowing the outcome, forseeing the outworking of every possible equation. He knew each one from their formation through to their completion. He new the good and the ill and He knew that His power- His love- His light- His truth-would relentlessly draw them all back home to the Makers Heart."

http://www.hellisamyth.com/themakersheart.htm

I, me and my opinion, agree with all of the above but this one part of the statement, "So he gave them a free will." I, me in my opinion, is a silly assumption.  For the adversary to have "free will" would be admitting a will that would/could usurp the very will of the CREATOR. i cannot nor will i give give leave to such a thought. 

[eaglesway]

What you don't seem to get Micah. is that characterizing one another's posts in that way is counterproductive.

I am not offended by being called silly, or the author of a "silly assumption".

However, you have to understand that not everyone will see things exactly as you do and you are not entirely right in what you see, as neither am I.

For instance,

If God "gives some one a measure of freedom", this does not mean that their will can somehow now "overturn" the ultimate will of God. That logic is not in force just because you say it. It is "silly" to assume that it is. You see? That is just unnecessary and counterproductive in a discussion between brother's and sisters :o)

I don't really think it is silly. I just disagree.


Therfore you need to accept the fact that the way to deal with differing ideas on a forum as this is to answer the scriptures presented by your "opponent" and refrain from personal characterizing their ideas in a negative way.

[omantodd2000]

Just to note because I was the one who used the word ----y at least first.
Re: Isa. 14 and Ezk. 28
« Reply #21 on: January 04, 2013, 09:34:53 AM »
QuoteModifyRemove
Quote from: eaglesway on January 04, 2013, 07:40:41 AM
How I think God "created evil".

"Well, first off, He created them like Himself. So he gave them a free will. He gave them power. He gave them creative intelligence. He gave them the authority to create and to destroy. The right to obey or refuse. And He saw that they would fall, but He planted "eternity in their hearts" so they would always hunger for love. How could they know love unless they experienced hate. How could they fully appreciate the glory of the gift of life unless they could experience the terror of death.  He set it all in motion knowing the outcome, forseeing the outworking of every possible equation. He knew each one from their formation through to their completion. He new the good and the ill and He knew that His power- His love- His light- His truth-would relentlessly draw them all back home to the Makers Heart."

http://www.hellisamyth.com/themakersheart.htm

I, me and my opinion, agree with all of the above but this one part of the statement, "So he gave them a free will." I, me in my opinion, is a silly assumption.  For the adversary to have "free will" would be admitting a will that would/could usurp the very will of the CREATOR. i cannot nor will i give give leave to such a thought.

I found this page a few years ago and thought it was very helpful in understanding this.

http://www.wrestedscripture.com/b07satan/the_angels_that_sinned.html

[micah7:9]

All I am wanting is a simple Bible verse of scripture that confirms that "lucifer" of Isa.14 and the cherub of Ezk. 28. is satan.
It is no big deal, I just believe that if these stories are true, there should be scripture confirmation. Lighting in Luke is not a morning star.
Besides, how in the world did this post shift to free will? :dontknow: :dsunny:

[ded2daworld]

We exerted our wills and "freely" got off topic. :doh: I'm with Micah - I've heard preachers SAY plenty of things about these scriptures as though they had divine revelation but it still boiled down to conjecture in the end - much like many of the verses in the book of revelation.

[eaglesway]

There are references in the two prophecies that some folks say, do not exactly fit the subjects of the prophecies. For instance was "the cherub that covers" using a cherub as an allegorical picture of the king of tyrus? or was the king of tyrus, while being prophesied against, also benig used as a typological reference to the spirit who was controling him?

I agree with Omantodd and Micah.I don't really care that much. It is too obscure to establish doctrinal absolutes about the origins of the adversary. Let everyman make his own judgment about it.

I tend to think there is a window into the heavenlies, and the nature of "spirits leaving their proper estates" woven into these prophecies. If you look at them next to Jude 1:6, there are interesting correlations.

[sheila]

 :thumbsup:   I am convinced that men given as examples..manifest what is in the unseen realms[spirits]

   signposts to help us along our way.  Jude speaking of the revealing of the man of sin/man of lawlessness

  the 'falling away' having already occurred[manifested]  and the Lord doing away with ..with the Breath of His coming

[sheila]

 simon the sorcerer as a type of follower of Christ   Acts  8;18  When Simon saw that the spirit was given

at the laying on of the apostle's hands,he offered them money,and said 'Give me also this ability

  so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy spirit.  Peter answered; May your money

  perish with you,because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money!!  You have no part

or share in this ministry..BECAUSE YOUR HEART IS NOT RIGHT. Repent of this wickedness and

  pray to the Lord.Perhaps He will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. For I can see that

you are full of bitterness[bitter envy] and captive to sin.

   spiritual types and shadows..that we may heed