U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-23-2011, 11:17 AM
 
Location: Miami, FL
58,572 posts, read 31,963,402 times
Reputation: 9422

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteWings View Post
Simple. Those wills combined lead to grace.

Imagine the world as a huge maze.
We are somewhere in that maze and are free to choose to take any route we like. That's our free will.
But that free will of chosing the route is limited by the layout of the maze.

And one by one His sheep will find the exit of the maze.
Those who don't will be search for by the Good Shepherd.
There are many who don't find their way because they love the maze. The Shepard will call them, but if they refuse to answer, they will die in the maze.

 
Old 01-23-2011, 01:00 PM
 
17,847 posts, read 8,918,122 times
Reputation: 1497
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteWings View Post
Simple. Those wills combined lead to grace.

Imagine the world as a huge maze.
We are somewhere in that maze and are free to choose to take any route we like. That's our free will.
But that free will of chosing the route is limited by the layout of the maze.

And one by one His sheep will find the exit of the maze.
Those who don't will be search for by the Good Shepherd.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn_Jarber
There are many who don't find their way because they love the maze. The Shepard will call them, but if they refuse to answer, they will die in the maze.
Many are in a state of bewilderment or confusion predicated on the delusions of men who walk down a blind alley, but that is changing as the Spirit leads.

Indeed, "He came to seek and save those that are lost."

(Nice to hear your voice, WhiteWings!)
 
Old 01-23-2011, 01:54 PM
 
309 posts, read 295,607 times
Reputation: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
God is sovereign. He is the Supreme Being of the universe, King of heaven and earth. He possesses absolute authority and volition. The Psalmist writes ''...Thou alone, whose name is the LORD, Art the Most High over all the earth.'' Psalms 83:18.

Many people cannot understand how the freewill of man can exist in view of God's Sovereignty. Scripture recognizes different categories of God's will. The technical theological terms which are used to identify these distinctions with regard to the will of God are 1) The Overruling will of God, 2) The Directive will of God, and 3) The Permissive will of God.

It is under the Permissive will of God that man's volition or freewill is able to function. Simply put, God allows man to make moral decisions which are often contrary to what He desires. God does not desire that man murder or steal or commit adultery, but these things nevertheless take place.

God permitted the apostle Paul to defy Him. Instead of going to Rome in A.D. 58 as God had directed him to, Paul decided instead to go to Jerusalem. God permitted this—up to a point. (Acts chapter 21). Concerning Paul's defiance of the Lord see the following site: Paul 's Mistake

And it is God's permissive will that allows man to say 'no' to the gospel message and reject Jesus Christ as Savior.


God's Directive will concerns what He wants a person to do, or where He wants a person to go. For example, refer to Acts 8:26 'But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip saying, 'Arise and go south to the road that descends from Jerusalem to Gaza.'' Acts 10:1-23 is another example.


And there is the Overruling will of God. Man's freewill has limits. When the volition of man would interfere with something which God has determined to do, then the Overruling will of God steps in and says 'No'. God's overruling will can be seen in Numbers chapters 22, 23, and 24, concerning Balak's desire for Balaam to curse the Jews, but God would not allow Balaam to curse the Jews, and in fact Balaam ended up blessing them instead.

God's overruling will steps in and prevents the human race from destroying itself.


The distinctions between what God desires and what He absolutely wills to happen are clearly delineated in Scripture.

Here is a site for those who are interested which goes into greater detail concerning the categories of God's will: DOCTRINE OF DIVINE GUIDANCE
A REBUTTAL to the article “Paul’ Mistake”

This whole article hinges on the following verse as proof of their claim.
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
Act 21:4 And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.

Basically the article is saying that the these disciples, speaking by the Mouth of the Spirit, commanded Paul not to go to Jerusalem, therefore Mike is saying that Paul made a ‘freewill’ choice to go against what the Spirit was saying, or to do what the Spirit is saying. In a nutshell Paul’s choice was “to go” or “not to go”, or “follow the Spirit” or “don’t follow the Spirit”.

Without pointing out an obvious problem in the article that sticks out like a sore thumb (we’ll get to that later on), we will first ask a simple question. For it is obvious that Paul did, indeed, go to Jerusalem. Question is “Why did he go there?”. What CAUSED him to go to Jerusalem? Was it his OWN fleshly will that guided him there, or was it the WILL of Spirit that guided him there? What do the scriptures say?
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
Act 20:22 And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there: (compare also Acts 20:16 and 19:21)

Now the article says the following about this approach…

“Others say that Paul was right and that it was the disciples who were wrong, that they should not have tried to stop him, because Paul was following an inner leading of the Spirit which they should have acknowledged. But that is to ignore three crucial words -- it was "through the Spirit" that they told Paul not to go on to Jerusalem.”

The article is so focused on the words “through the Spirit”, that it lends NO EXPLANAION at all on what being “bound in the spirit” means. The Greek word “deo” here denotes “to bind, be in bonds, tie, wind”. The expression can be understood in several ways:
  • A prisoner (or a chain of prisoners) ‘bound’ and then ‘tethered’ to a horse and LED here or there
  • A prisoner “wound”, then thrown over the back of a horse and then LED here or there
Paul has simply been “bound” by the Spirit, and the Spirit is LEADING him to GO to Jerusalem. The Greek word “deo” in EVERY instance of the bible denotes a “forceful” binding AGAINST the will or reaction of what is being bound.

The verse goes on to say that he does not know what will occur there. Meaning that he doesn’t know how everything revealed to him is to come about, for this has not been revealed to him yet. I say this because, in regards to this issue of our discussion, God has obviously revealed 3 things to Paul at this point. Two of them are WHERE he will, UNDOUBTEDLY, be going:

Act 19:21 After these things were ended, Paul purposed in the spirit, ….to go to Jerusalem, saying, AFTER I have been there, I MUST also see Rome.

The third thing that has been revealed to him is WHAT is waiting for him in Jerusalem. The article doesn’t even discuss the following verses Acts 20:23-24.

Act 20:23 Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me.

The Holy Ghost has revealed this at cities he visited, that “bonds and afflictions” await him at Jerusalem. This is what was revealed to those disciples in Acts 21:4 (more on them later). But how did the Spirit reveal this. Let us look at one of these witnesses from the Holy Ghost:

Act 21:11 And when he (the prophet) was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.

Now, here is where we will discuss the “sore thumb” that stands out in the article. Read that verse (11) over and over and tell me if there is any implication WHATSOEVER that it is giving Paul some kind of CHOICE here. The prophet is revealing to us what WILL UNDOUBTEDLY happen. No “ifs, ands, buts” about it. IT WILL HAPPEN. The word “So” here should be translated “in like manner” or “in this way”. Don’t confuse this with the Spirit binding him. The Spirit bound him and LED him to Jerusalem, the Jews will now “bind” him and LEAD him to Rome. Both are OF GOD though.

Now look at the authors understanding of this verse in the article. Those of “freewill” theology are FORCED to do this all the time to keep there idle of “freewill”. They just don’t like that the scripture obviously states that there is NO CHOICE in the matter, it WILL HAPPEN. From the article:

“There Agabus, a well-known prophet of the Lord, whom we have also met before, in that dramatic, visual way by which Orientals illustrate truth so beautifully, took Paul's sash from around his waist and bound his own feet and hands, and said, "This is what the Holy Spirit is saying to you, Paul. If you go on to Jerusalem, this is what will happen to you. You'll be delivered into the hands of the Gentiles. They will bind you, and you'll be a prisoner."”

The author has taken an obvious DECLARATION in the scriptures and has slyly turned it in to a CHOICE. This is an obvious ADDITION to the word of God. This is the poorest excuse of a paraphrase that I have ever seen. You can go anywhere with this kind of thinking. Like, hey just throw away the girdle and you wont have to worry about all this, then you will no longer OWN it. Or, hey lets sell it to some poor sap in the streets and let him suffer these things.

When Mike supplied this article I was ecstatic that he actually gave and example of what he calls “God’s permissive will”. If one believes these words, it is no wonder they believe in “freewill”. This comment really floored me. I try to read all the article that Mike sets forth, but when the “leaven” of MISUNDERSTANDINGS show forth in the articles, then it taints the whole of the article. And this comment was obviously the “leaven” of the article. I did read the whole thing, looking for any more so called proofs to his claims on ‘freewill’ though, but found none.

Verse 11 is simply a ‘declaration’ of a revelation given to the prophet of what WILL HAPPEN. After hearing this thing, their own fleshly concerns of their love and care for Paul MADE them beseech the following.

Act 21:12 And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem.

They did NOT speak this by the Spirit, but by their own fleshly love and care for Paul. But their beseeching will NOT thwart what WILL HAPPEN. Therefore, we read…

Act 21:14 And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.

The “will” that is TO BE DONE here is none other than what the prophet just said. The author of the article goes way of base here.

“When Paul refused to be persuaded his friends said, "Well, may the will of the Lord be done." That is what you say when you do not know what else to say. That is what you pray when you do not know how else to act. They are simply saying, "Lord, it is up to you. We can't stop this man. He has a strong will and a mighty determination, and he's deluded into thinking that this is what you want. Therefore, you will have to handle it. May the will of the Lord be done."”

Forgive me, but this was almost comical. Notice the paraphrase "Well, may the will of the Lord be done.", that is to say “OH WELL, may the will of the Lord be done”. The author is convince that this is “what you say when you do not know what else to say.” No sir, that is what one MUST MAKE it say when you just turned a declaration into a mere choice. This whole line of thought shows a weakness in understanding.

Now, back to Paul knowing WHERE he going and WHAT awaits him. He has known what is awaiting him in Jerusalem for quite some time, for the Holy Spirit has revealed it in the cities he visited. But even after all that awaits him, he says…

Act 20:24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.

None of these things (not even the beseechings of the disciples in Acts 21:4). Paul knows that the Spirit has been setting his “course” (Pro 20:24) all along, and his ministry was GIVEN to him by Jesus, to TESTIFY. It is as Jesus says:

Act 23:11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.

There’s that word “so” again that should be translated “in this way” or “in like manner”. It is obvious when understanding this verse with Acts 20:24, that Jesus gave Paul a “ministry” to “testify” the gospel in Jerusalem, to where the Spirit led him, and then to “testify” the same things in Rome. Not only this, but he is seeing what is coming as the “consummation” of his ministry of testifying, which ends in Rome. After this, his pen takes over. If he had not established the churches out there, who then is he going to write to? Here was the ministry given to him:

Act 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

Well, thus far Paul has ministered before “the children of Israel” and the Gentiles, but as of yet we see nothing of his ministries to the kings and ruling powers. And WHERE are these rulers to be found? Why in Jerusalem and Rome, of course. So YES, the Spirit is, indeed, leading him to these places.

Jesus tells Paul to be of “good cheer”. Now, if the article was correct in saying that Paul was commanded NOT TO GO to Jerusalem, we would expect some slight rebuke here by Jesus, would we not. If Paul disobeyed the Spirit, then the scriptures show no evidence of any type of rebuke even when he “boasts” of a good and non-offensive conscience before God.

Act 23:1 And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.

Act 24:16 And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.

But again, we hear of no rebuke, so it is obvious that Paul did NOT lie when he said these things. Paul was given the ‘help’ and the Spirit of God to know and DO God’s will

Act 22:14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath CHOSEN thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.

Act 26:22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:

The whole article points out that Paul made a mistake and followed his own heart by going to Jerusalem. And as said before, the author hangs all of this on the following verse:

Act 21:4 And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.

Now, if this verse is “declaring” that the Spirit commanded Paul NOT to go to Jerusalem, but at the SAME time, LEADING him there, then it seems we do have a bit of a problem. Let us explore it a bit.

The author never explains to us what is meant by phrases such as, “I go bound in the spirit” or “purposed in the spirit”. It stands to follow, that to embrace their claim they would have to conclude that it was NOT the Spirit of God spoken of here, but rather Paul’s spirit. Now, if that is a tactic that one would want to employ here, could I not use the same tactic that Acts 21:4 is speaking of the disciple’s own spirit? Being that arguing capital “S” here would be unwarranted, we will look at by comparing it to what has been talked about thus far.

We know that the Spirit revealed it to people in the cities, and it was told to Paul upon his visitation to them. It also was obvious that the Spirit told these disciples in Acts 21:4. I don’t think that it was the mouth of the Spirit commanding that Paul “not go up to Jerusalem. It was rather the mouth of the disciples that spoke it. Compare this verse with the following verse:

Act 21:11 And when he (the prophet) was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, so shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.

Act 21:4 And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.

It is seen that the Agabus was simply repeating what the Spirit has told him. The disciples, however, made no declaration such as “Thus saith the Holy Ghost”. I am, in no way, stating that the Spirit did not speak TO the disciples. The Spirit most likely revealed to them, either in the same manner, or in some other manner (whether by vision, mouth of another prophet, etc.), the SAME thing that was revealed in the OTHER cities Paul visited. Namely that:

Act 20:23 …that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me.

And at hearing and learning of this thing, they responded the EXACT same way as we see else where:

Act 21:12 And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem.

Just because the Spirit reveals something to us, does not mean that we will LIKE it. There faith obviously wasn’t as strong as Paul’s, therefore they responded by there fleshly concerns (like the disciples of Christ, when they didn’t want Him to go).

Now, one could argue what I am putting forth here, but the article obviously doesn’t, when it speaks of the actions of Agabus the prophet, AFTER he tells the revelation to them.

“….it is clear that this was the last effort made by the Holy Spirit to awaken the apostle to what he was doing. Agabus was joined in this by the whole body of believers. The whole family present urged him not to go…”

If this be true then Agabus didn’t like what was revealed either and acted just as “both we, and they of that place”. But the rest of the statement that claims this was the “last effort made by the Holy Spirit to awaken the apostle to what he was doing” is obviously an assumption on the part of the author and who ever may believe it.

The article also parallels its claims by referring to Balaam in the following:

“The Spirit had made crystal clear that he was not to go to Jerusalem, had finally put in almost the same terms employed by the angel toward Balaam, who, riding upon his ass, was determined to do his own will: "Stop going up to Jerusalem!"”

It would seem clear, in the reading of this account, that Balaam was following his “own will” and not God’s. Fact is, Balaam was BLINDED to God’s blockings. Everyone is BLINDED, unless their eyes be opened by God. The only way Balaam could see any things OF GOD is if God Himself opens his eyes.

Num 22:31 Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and (THEN) he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face.

In regards to the article, it has been made abundantly clear, by all that has been shown, that Paul was LED to Jerusalem so that he may THEN be LED to Rome. Just as Jesus said he would. Therefore, we have effectively removed this claim from under what Mike calls the “permissive will” of God, and place it under what he calls the “Overruling Will” of God.


Regards,
Joe
 
Old 01-23-2011, 03:05 PM
 
20,326 posts, read 15,687,589 times
Reputation: 7446
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeallcomm View Post
A REBUTTAL to the article “Paul’ Mistake”

This whole article hinges on the following verse as proof of their claim.
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
Act 21:4 And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.

Basically the article is saying that the these disciples, speaking by the Mouth of the Spirit, commanded Paul not to go to Jerusalem, therefore Mike is saying that Paul made a ‘freewill’ choice to go against what the Spirit was saying, or to do what the Spirit is saying. In a nutshell Paul’s choice was “to go” or “not to go”, or “follow the Spirit” or “don’t follow the Spirit”.

Without pointing out an obvious problem in the article that sticks out like a sore thumb (we’ll get to that later on), we will first ask a simple question. For it is obvious that Paul did, indeed, go to Jerusalem. Question is “Why did he go there?”. What CAUSED him to go to Jerusalem? Was it his OWN fleshly will that guided him there, or was it the WILL of Spirit that guided him there? What do the scriptures say?
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
Act 20:22 And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there: (compare also Acts 20:16 and 19:21)

Now the article says the following about this approach…

“Others say that Paul was right and that it was the disciples who were wrong, that they should not have tried to stop him, because Paul was following an inner leading of the Spirit which they should have acknowledged. But that is to ignore three crucial words -- it was "through the Spirit" that they told Paul not to go on to Jerusalem.”

The article is so focused on the words “through the Spirit”, that it lends NO EXPLANAION at all on what being “bound in the spirit” means. The Greek word “deo” here denotes “to bind, be in bonds, tie, wind”. The expression can be understood in several ways:
  • A prisoner (or a chain of prisoners) ‘bound’ and then ‘tethered’ to a horse and LED here or there
  • A prisoner “wound”, then thrown over the back of a horse and then LED here or there
Paul has simply been “bound” by the Spirit, and the Spirit is LEADING him to GO to Jerusalem. The Greek word “deo” in EVERY instance of the bible denotes a “forceful” binding AGAINST the will or reaction of what is being bound.

The verse goes on to say that he does not know what will occur there. Meaning that he doesn’t know how everything revealed to him is to come about, for this has not been revealed to him yet. I say this because, in regards to this issue of our discussion, God has obviously revealed 3 things to Paul at this point. Two of them are WHERE he will, UNDOUBTEDLY, be going:

Act 19:21 After these things were ended, Paul purposed in the spirit, ….to go to Jerusalem, saying, AFTER I have been there, I MUST also see Rome.

The third thing that has been revealed to him is WHAT is waiting for him in Jerusalem. The article doesn’t even discuss the following verses Acts 20:23-24.

Act 20:23 Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me.

The Holy Ghost has revealed this at cities he visited, that “bonds and afflictions” await him at Jerusalem. This is what was revealed to those disciples in Acts 21:4 (more on them later). But how did the Spirit reveal this. Let us look at one of these witnesses from the Holy Ghost:

Act 21:11 And when he (the prophet) was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.

Now, here is where we will discuss the “sore thumb” that stands out in the article. Read that verse (11) over and over and tell me if there is any implication WHATSOEVER that it is giving Paul some kind of CHOICE here. The prophet is revealing to us what WILL UNDOUBTEDLY happen. No “ifs, ands, buts” about it. IT WILL HAPPEN. The word “So” here should be translated “in like manner” or “in this way”. Don’t confuse this with the Spirit binding him. The Spirit bound him and LED him to Jerusalem, the Jews will now “bind” him and LEAD him to Rome. Both are OF GOD though.

Now look at the authors understanding of this verse in the article. Those of “freewill” theology are FORCED to do this all the time to keep there idle of “freewill”. They just don’t like that the scripture obviously states that there is NO CHOICE in the matter, it WILL HAPPEN. From the article:

“There Agabus, a well-known prophet of the Lord, whom we have also met before, in that dramatic, visual way by which Orientals illustrate truth so beautifully, took Paul's sash from around his waist and bound his own feet and hands, and said, "This is what the Holy Spirit is saying to you, Paul. If you go on to Jerusalem, this is what will happen to you. You'll be delivered into the hands of the Gentiles. They will bind you, and you'll be a prisoner."”

The author has taken an obvious DECLARATION in the scriptures and has slyly turned it in to a CHOICE. This is an obvious ADDITION to the word of God. This is the poorest excuse of a paraphrase that I have ever seen. You can go anywhere with this kind of thinking. Like, hey just throw away the girdle and you wont have to worry about all this, then you will no longer OWN it. Or, hey lets sell it to some poor sap in the streets and let him suffer these things.

When Mike supplied this article I was ecstatic that he actually gave and example of what he calls “God’s permissive will”. If one believes these words, it is no wonder they believe in “freewill”. This comment really floored me. I try to read all the article that Mike sets forth, but when the “leaven” of MISUNDERSTANDINGS show forth in the articles, then it taints the whole of the article. And this comment was obviously the “leaven” of the article. I did read the whole thing, looking for any more so called proofs to his claims on ‘freewill’ though, but found none.

Verse 11 is simply a ‘declaration’ of a revelation given to the prophet of what WILL HAPPEN. After hearing this thing, their own fleshly concerns of their love and care for Paul MADE them beseech the following.

Act 21:12 And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem.

They did NOT speak this by the Spirit, but by their own fleshly love and care for Paul. But their beseeching will NOT thwart what WILL HAPPEN. Therefore, we read…

Act 21:14 And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.

The “will” that is TO BE DONE here is none other than what the prophet just said. The author of the article goes way of base here.

“When Paul refused to be persuaded his friends said, "Well, may the will of the Lord be done." That is what you say when you do not know what else to say. That is what you pray when you do not know how else to act. They are simply saying, "Lord, it is up to you. We can't stop this man. He has a strong will and a mighty determination, and he's deluded into thinking that this is what you want. Therefore, you will have to handle it. May the will of the Lord be done."”

Forgive me, but this was almost comical. Notice the paraphrase "Well, may the will of the Lord be done.", that is to say “OH WELL, may the will of the Lord be done”. The author is convince that this is “what you say when you do not know what else to say.” No sir, that is what one MUST MAKE it say when you just turned a declaration into a mere choice. This whole line of thought shows a weakness in understanding.

Now, back to Paul knowing WHERE he going and WHAT awaits him. He has known what is awaiting him in Jerusalem for quite some time, for the Holy Spirit has revealed it in the cities he visited. But even after all that awaits him, he says…

Act 20:24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.

None of these things (not even the beseechings of the disciples in Acts 21:4). Paul knows that the Spirit has been setting his “course” (Pro 20:24) all along, and his ministry was GIVEN to him by Jesus, to TESTIFY. It is as Jesus says:

Act 23:11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.

There’s that word “so” again that should be translated “in this way” or “in like manner”. It is obvious when understanding this verse with Acts 20:24, that Jesus gave Paul a “ministry” to “testify” the gospel in Jerusalem, to where the Spirit led him, and then to “testify” the same things in Rome. Not only this, but he is seeing what is coming as the “consummation” of his ministry of testifying, which ends in Rome. After this, his pen takes over. If he had not established the churches out there, who then is he going to write to? Here was the ministry given to him:

Act 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

Well, thus far Paul has ministered before “the children of Israel” and the Gentiles, but as of yet we see nothing of his ministries to the kings and ruling powers. And WHERE are these rulers to be found? Why in Jerusalem and Rome, of course. So YES, the Spirit is, indeed, leading him to these places.

Jesus tells Paul to be of “good cheer”. Now, if the article was correct in saying that Paul was commanded NOT TO GO to Jerusalem, we would expect some slight rebuke here by Jesus, would we not. If Paul disobeyed the Spirit, then the scriptures show no evidence of any type of rebuke even when he “boasts” of a good and non-offensive conscience before God.

Act 23:1 And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.

Act 24:16 And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.

But again, we hear of no rebuke, so it is obvious that Paul did NOT lie when he said these things. Paul was given the ‘help’ and the Spirit of God to know and DO God’s will

Act 22:14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath CHOSEN thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.

Act 26:22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:

The whole article points out that Paul made a mistake and followed his own heart by going to Jerusalem. And as said before, the author hangs all of this on the following verse:

Act 21:4 And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.

Now, if this verse is “declaring” that the Spirit commanded Paul NOT to go to Jerusalem, but at the SAME time, LEADING him there, then it seems we do have a bit of a problem. Let us explore it a bit.

The author never explains to us what is meant by phrases such as, “I go bound in the spirit” or “purposed in the spirit”. It stands to follow, that to embrace their claim they would have to conclude that it was NOT the Spirit of God spoken of here, but rather Paul’s spirit. Now, if that is a tactic that one would want to employ here, could I not use the same tactic that Acts 21:4 is speaking of the disciple’s own spirit? Being that arguing capital “S” here would be unwarranted, we will look at by comparing it to what has been talked about thus far.

We know that the Spirit revealed it to people in the cities, and it was told to Paul upon his visitation to them. It also was obvious that the Spirit told these disciples in Acts 21:4. I don’t think that it was the mouth of the Spirit commanding that Paul “not go up to Jerusalem. It was rather the mouth of the disciples that spoke it. Compare this verse with the following verse:

Act 21:11 And when he (the prophet) was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, so shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.

Act 21:4 And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.

It is seen that the Agabus was simply repeating what the Spirit has told him. The disciples, however, made no declaration such as “Thus saith the Holy Ghost”. I am, in no way, stating that the Spirit did not speak TO the disciples. The Spirit most likely revealed to them, either in the same manner, or in some other manner (whether by vision, mouth of another prophet, etc.), the SAME thing that was revealed in the OTHER cities Paul visited. Namely that:

Act 20:23 …that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me.

And at hearing and learning of this thing, they responded the EXACT same way as we see else where:

Act 21:12 And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem.

Just because the Spirit reveals something to us, does not mean that we will LIKE it. There faith obviously wasn’t as strong as Paul’s, therefore they responded by there fleshly concerns (like the disciples of Christ, when they didn’t want Him to go).

Now, one could argue what I am putting forth here, but the article obviously doesn’t, when it speaks of the actions of Agabus the prophet, AFTER he tells the revelation to them.

“….it is clear that this was the last effort made by the Holy Spirit to awaken the apostle to what he was doing. Agabus was joined in this by the whole body of believers. The whole family present urged him not to go…”

If this be true then Agabus didn’t like what was revealed either and acted just as “both we, and they of that place”. But the rest of the statement that claims this was the “last effort made by the Holy Spirit to awaken the apostle to what he was doing” is obviously an assumption on the part of the author and who ever may believe it.

The article also parallels its claims by referring to Balaam in the following:

“The Spirit had made crystal clear that he was not to go to Jerusalem, had finally put in almost the same terms employed by the angel toward Balaam, who, riding upon his ass, was determined to do his own will: "Stop going up to Jerusalem!"”

It would seem clear, in the reading of this account, that Balaam was following his “own will” and not God’s. Fact is, Balaam was BLINDED to God’s blockings. Everyone is BLINDED, unless their eyes be opened by God. The only way Balaam could see any things OF GOD is if God Himself opens his eyes.

Num 22:31 Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and (THEN) he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face.

In regards to the article, it has been made abundantly clear, by all that has been shown, that Paul was LED to Jerusalem so that he may THEN be LED to Rome. Just as Jesus said he would. Therefore, we have effectively removed this claim from under what Mike calls the “permissive will” of God, and place it under what he calls the “Overruling Will” of God.


Regards,
Joe
If you don't like the article, then here is Paul's mistake nice and simple.

Did God tell Paul to go to Rome? YES. Did Paul go to Rome at that time? NO. Did Paul in fact disobey God and go to Jerusalem instead? Yes. Did God permit Paul to disobey Him? YES.

The Permissive will of God permits men to make moral choices that go against God's desire
 
Old 01-23-2011, 03:26 PM
 
55 posts, read 53,252 times
Reputation: 33
If I put a gun to my son's head one day and told him, "You can do anything you want...but if you do x, y, or z, I will blow your brains out tomorrow," is that free will? Sure, you can do anything you want during your lifetime but so what? This is only technical free will. In the end, if you do not do what God wants you to do, you recieve the ultimate punishment: eternal damnation.

What about Christians with earthly desires? Those who want to lie, say bad words, have sex outside of marriage, et cetra, but can't because they know God will punish them if they do? Yes, it's free will in the sense that you are able to make yourself not do those things even though you really want to, but....what's the point of bringing this up? God's still totalitarian.

And even if it's not just a technical form of free will, then is it the type of free will that Christians should be trying to use to show how benelovent god is? It's definitely not something you'd want to illustrate to a potential convert...
 
Old 01-23-2011, 05:04 PM
 
309 posts, read 295,607 times
Reputation: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
If you don't like the article, then here is Paul's mistake nice and simple.
No sir, I did not agree with the article.

Quote:
Did God tell Paul to go to Rome? YES. Did Paul go to Rome at that time? NO.


Mike, where does is say that God told Paul to go to Rome?

Quote:
Did Paul in fact disobey God and go to Jerusalem instead? Yes. Did God permit Paul to disobey Him? YES.


It is obvous that you think he did, and so does the author of the article. Did you even read anything I posted? You are good at using alot of your own words without any supporting scriptures.

Quote:
The Permissive will of God permits men to make moral choices that go against God's desire
We have went round and round on this 'freewill' issue Mike. And through it all I am kind enough to supply you with a plethora of scriptures to support my claims, but you supply very little scripture and MANY of your own words. Again, just because you keep repeating it, does not mean it is true Mike.

I have also asked you many questions (with supporting scriptures), and for the most part, you NEVER answer.

You need to start supporting your views by using scripture instead of MANY MANY words of you and other men. If what you say is true, then one should find much proof of this in the Holy Scriptures. I did read the article though, and thank you for your examples, but as explained, they just dont line up.

But know this sir Mike, I LOVE YOU, and I wont give up on you.

Blessings
Joe
 
Old 01-23-2011, 06:18 PM
 
Location: Miami, FL
58,572 posts, read 31,963,402 times
Reputation: 9422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerwade View Post
Indeed, "He came to seek and save those that are lost."
Yes, but only those who believe will be saved: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

The offer stands, but will you accept it? That is the question.
 
Old 01-23-2011, 07:32 PM
 
20,326 posts, read 15,687,589 times
Reputation: 7446
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeallcomm View Post
No sir, I did not agree with the article.



Mike, where does is say that God told Paul to go to Rome?



It is obvous that you think he did, and so does the author of the article. Did you even read anything I posted? You are good at using alot of your own words without any supporting scriptures.
One need only refer back to my prior posts and threads to plainly see that I use Scripture constantly to back up what I say.

In Acts 21:3-4 The Holy Spirit first warns Paul not to go to Jerusalem. Starting at verse 4 'And after looking up the disciples, we stayed there seven days; and they kept telling Paul through the Spirit not to set foot in Jerusalem.'

At Ptolemais through a prophet by the name of Agabus, the Holy Spirit again warns Paul not to go to Jerusalem. (starting at verse 10) 'And as we were staying there for some days, a certain prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11] And coming to us, he took Paul's belt and bound his own feet and hands, and said, ''This is what the Holy Spirit says; 'In this way the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.' ''


Paul was warned twice by God NOT to go to Jerusalem.

Paul had proposed to go to Rome after first going to Jerusalem (Acts 19:21). As already seen, The Holy Spirit had warned Paul not to go to Jerusalem.

In Acts 23:11 after having gone to Jerusalem anyway and suffering imprisonment, The Lord tells Paul that he must go to Rome. '...Take courage; for as you have solemnly witnessed to My cause at Jerusalem, so you must witness at Rome also.''

It had been God's intention for Paul to go to Rome without first going to Jerusalem.

Quote:
We have went round and round on this 'freewill' issue Mike. And through it all I am kind enough to supply you with a plethora of scriptures to support my claims, but you supply very little scripture and MANY of your own words. Again, just because you keep repeating it, does not mean it is true Mike.

I have also asked you many questions (with supporting scriptures), and for the most part, you NEVER answer.
It is not neccessary to answer your many questions. I have shown you from the scriptures (contrary to your claims) that man does have free will. Since you insist on applying philosophical concepts to man's free will instead of a real world perspective on the matter, you will continue to deny the existence of free will.

Quote:
You need to start supporting your views by using scripture instead of MANY MANY words of you and other men. If what you say is true, then one should find much proof of this in the Holy Scriptures. I did read the article though, and thank you for your examples, but as explained, they just dont line up.

But know this sir Mike, I LOVE YOU, and I wont give up on you.

Blessings
Joe
As I have already said, I have always used Scripture to support what I say.

Scripture does not support your denial of man's free will in the slightest. Contrary to your claims, I have used the scriptures to show that man does have free will. This very thread proves that. And this very post proves that.
 
Old 01-23-2011, 07:58 PM
 
7,374 posts, read 7,208,545 times
Reputation: 892
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
One need only refer back to my prior posts and threads to plainly see that I use Scripture constantly to back up what I say.

In Acts 21:3-4 The Holy Spirit first warns Paul not to go to Jerusalem. Starting at verse 4 'And after looking up the disciples, we stayed there seven days; and they kept telling Paul through the Spirit not to set foot in Jerusalem.'

At Ptolemais through a prophet by the name of Agabus, the Holy Spirit again warns Paul not to go to Jerusalem. (starting at verse 10) 'And as we were staying there for some days, a certain prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11] And coming to us, he took Paul's belt and bound his own feet and hands, and said, ''This is what the Holy Spirit says; 'In this way the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.' ''


Paul was warned twice by God NOT to go to Jerusalem.

Paul had proposed to go to Rome after first going to Jerusalem (Acts 19:21). As already seen, The Holy Spirit had warned Paul not to go to Jerusalem.

In Acts 23:11 after having gone to Jerusalem anyway and suffering imprisonment, The Lord tells Paul that he must go to Rome. '...Take courage; for as you have solemnly witnessed to My cause at Jerusalem, so you must witness at Rome also.''

It had been God's intention for Paul to go to Rome without first going to Jerusalem.



It is not neccessary to answer your many questions. I have shown you from the scriptures (contrary to your claims) that man does have free will. Since you insist on applying philosophical concepts to man's free will instead of a real world perspective on the matter, you will continue to deny the existence of free will.



As I have already said, I have always used Scripture to support what I say.

Scripture does not support your denial of man's free will in the slightest. Contrary to your claims, I have used the scriptures to show that man does have free will. This very thread proves that. And this very post proves that.

What i see is the spirit warning Paul through the other apostles concerning his fate should he God to Jerusalem ...

That does not mean that God did not want him to Go there, as a matter of fact God always knew that Paul would go there ... What we have here is a testament to the power of God to work all things out for the best.

The fact of the matter is, Paul wrote Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians and Philippians while in prison.

And because of his own weakness which led him to go to Jerusalem after which he was imprisoned, Paul was inspired to write many things he otherwise might not ever have written.

EVERYTHING happens for a reason, and God had a perfectly good reason for allowing Paul to go to Jerusalem ... Just like he had a perfectly good reason for letting Adam eat the fruit of knowledge.

The best example of this is Jonah ... Jonah resisted God, and to what effect? Had Jonah not resisted God, then he would never have sailed on the stormy sea and he never would have been thrown over board and he never would have been swallowed by the fish and spat out on the shores of Nineveh ... That is the very thing that caused the people of Nineveh to repent, the miracle of seeing Jonah carried to shore in the belly of a fish and brought back to life in order that he might prophecy to Nineveh ... It all worked out according to the will of God.

You cant escape the plan of God, what is otherwise known as fate, the more you try to resist, the more you cause it to happen in spite of yourself.

God does not make mistakes, God is never surprised, and nothing is outside of the realm of Gods influence.

The only reason why many people do not understand this is because it is part of Gods plan that many should be temporarily deceived.
 
Old 01-23-2011, 08:15 PM
 
Location: Florida
5,965 posts, read 5,578,671 times
Reputation: 1584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obamuchadnezzar View Post
If I put a gun to my son's head one day and told him, "You can do anything you want...but if you do x, y, or z, I will blow your brains out tomorrow," is that free will? Sure, you can do anything you want during your lifetime but so what? This is only technical free will. In the end, if you do not do what God wants you to do, you recieve the ultimate punishment: eternal damnation.

What about Christians with earthly desires? Those who want to lie, say bad words, have sex outside of marriage, et cetra, but can't because they know God will punish them if they do? Yes, it's free will in the sense that you are able to make yourself not do those things even though you really want to, but....what's the point of bringing this up? God's still totalitarian.

And even if it's not just a technical form of free will, then is it the type of free will that Christians should be trying to use to show how benelovent god is? It's definitely not something you'd want to illustrate to a potential convert...
You're right. That is why being sanctified is the process of our will becoming one with God's will. No doubt about that. The earthly/carnal nature is indeed at enmity with God. The scriptures do not teach otherwise. In fact, this sorrowful world proves that billions of personal and opposing wills creates chaos. That's why there is war and hatred and fighting. But when God is all in all, and all are One, we won't have this problem any longer. And it is only because of our flesh that we have these desires that cry out for "freedom" - thus proving that being lowered into the realm of mortality (born in Adam) is indeed a curse. There is only one way out of the mortal body - through death. So much for free will! I do thank God for the gift of faith, otherwise I'd be without hope (lost).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top