We humans are flesh and bones. Adam said of his wife: This is flesh of my flesh. It is what holds our stuff together, has blood veins and nerves, hair and all sorts of neat other stuff.
As long as humanity is in the flesh, their wills are of the flesh. Christians have it a little differently. We have God’s and Christ’s spirit in us and so that spirit wars against the flesh and the flesh wars against that spirit, lest you may do whatever you want (see Gal.5:17)
Now then, I’ve already given all the verses where it is stated man has a will, that the will is the will of the flesh, that the flesh is at enmity to God and therefore man’s will is at enmity to God.
Therefore, according to the topic of this thread, how can all mankind be saved if they have to do so by their own will since they would never will be be friends with God by their own will. Does it not stand to reason that God must therefore save them and therefore change their will?
In Revelation 17:17 it is written concerning these nations:
Rev 17:17 for God imparts to their hearts to form His opinion, and to form one opinion, and to give their kingdom to the wild beast, until the words of God shall be accomplished."
God is making those nations do something rather nasty. The beast is very nasty. And God is going to make them give their kingdoms to that wild beast. Why doesn’t He just save them all right now and not put them through all this nastiness? Because He has some things He has to teach them which they could not learn otherwise.
Now if God can do that with them, why can’t He change the heart of all mankind to be at peace with Him?
Thanks for your answers.
As to the question above, I don’t know. I don’t think that anyone does know; if it was clear at all there would be more agreement than there has been for centuries.
It is sufficient for me to know that God does command, ask, lovingly direct - us to do certain things, the implication being that we can do them, or that, by trying to do them, we can see what sin really is and how our wills are mis-directed, but still free.
As to the whole sarx (flesh) question I’ll leave it to experts. From what I understand, it means more than ‘flesh’ as in ‘flesh and blood’.
f
My problem is that I am suspicious of anyone, who claims they know more than all the theologians, philosophers and churches - both historical and contemporary - put together (and that could just be my impression, mind you). Nor do I suspect it would matter, who visited the forum and gave input:
Pope Francis
A patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church
The President of the Southern Baptist Convention
Christian philosophers and theologians, from Ivy League schools
Etc.
And I would start to look at explanations, as to why that is so. Let’s take a hypothetical example. Suppose a relative of Ellyn G. White, the historical prophet of the Seventh Day Adventists, came to visit. Let’s call her Sue. And they claimed to know the full truth, God visited her, gave her the full truth - so to speak. And everyone on this forum - and outside this forum - is wrong. I would first try to look at scientific, psychological and medical theories, to explain Sue’s behavior. She could be an egoist, naive, have delusions of grander, have a mental illness, an organic illness, etc. Or there might be spiritual factors, such as influence by demons or evil spirits, etc.
But if they said, “this is my belief”… And others have “other Christian beliefs”…fine. That I understand. But I get the impression, that what I shared initially in this post, is the truth, as this person sees it. So if you don’t believe, that “you know more than all the theologians, philosophers and churches - both historical and contemporary - put together”, just say so. Set me straight. As I read his most recent posts, I think he is approaching this position: “this is my belief”… And others have “other Christian beliefs”.
Reminds me of visiting the home, of a Wheaton College linguistics professor. It was an informal get together. And a missionary there, talked of giving lessons regarding Hebrew - in Spanish - in Costa Rica (a Spanish speaking country). And they had folks who were Roman Catholic, Mennonite, Health and Prosperity Gospel believers, etc. They had friendly debates and dialogues. But they never said I am right and your belief system is entirely wrong.
While this person is busy arguing, there are saints and holy people, from Christian and non-Christian traditions. They are showing people how to live morally, help others, etc. And they grant requests of people, for a healing, financial help, a child, etc. Why? So they can come and live spiritually, like Christ and these saints like to do. And help suffering humanity, through acts of charity, etc. And they don’t take money, advertise and they give God all the credit - for any miracles or apparent miracles. Of course, some or most will call that “make believe examples”. But if they were or are real, then they are doing far more good - then those arguing over “correct doctrine”.
As far as agreeing with
All mainline Christians can agree with that. The key comes in, is that the churches and theologians, have different answers, as to how man’s will becomes aligned to God’s will.
And the Holy Fools tradition, regardless of how strange and weird it appears to outsiders, is a valid, historical Christian tradition. And it had its origins in the Russian Orthodox Church. And I’m very serious about following it. See Simeon the Holy Fool:
And a friend from the East - shared this today:
And I do side with that position. So if someone compliments me on what I know, what I can do, what I have achieved, etc., I just thank them and say anything gained in this life, and the next - is due to the grace of God. God’s grace operates though the heredity, environment, etc. God’s grace guides me to the academic and spiritual things, I need to learn and experience.
And if folks want to get along with me and even become friends, don’t sing this song, everytime we meet
Well, I would state that # 1,2 & 3 (and by default #4) are true as of the new testament writing, but after the calamity that was 70 AD, that man (as you seem to allude to) is not at enmity with God and Christ’s death, burial and resurrection have put us (all of humanity) in a different place with our God,(hooray ) and we will grow closer to our creator. It is finished. We have free will, God HAS had his.
We truly are a new creation and it is truly good news
In God’s mind, when Christ died, all mankind died. But in reality, God still has severe judgments on the horizon to deal with man’s sinfulness.
If man is not at enmity to God, why are we ambassadors entreating mankind to be at peace with God? You see, God has conciliated the world*** to Himself***, not reckoning their offenses to them.
Well, here is the passage:
“how that God was in Christ, conciliating the world to Himself, not reckoning their offenses to them, and placing in us the word of the conciliation.” For Christ, then, are we ambassadors, as of God entreating through us. We are beseeching for Christ’s sake, “Be conciliated to God!” For the One not knowing sin, He makes to be a sin offering for our sakes that we may be becoming God’s righteousness in Him." (2Co 5:19-21)
Now then, if mankind as a whole were already conciliated to God, there would be no need for believers to be ambassadors and entreat mankind to be conciliated to God. It would be rather redundant on our part.
In fact, the reconciliation of all mankind is yet in the far off future when death is abolished and all mankind are given immortality and incorruption.
I am sorry , you must have overlooked the position of the new covenant…
Rom_5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
2Co_5:18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,
2Co_5:20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
Col_1:22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach–
There is free will , there is sovereignty, and there reconciliation.
Maybe no translation needed, but surely some degree of understanding or common-sense wouldn’t go astray, at least beyond just your simplistic say so. Thus according to you… Paul’s “the flesh” constitutes the physicality of man, and it is THIS physicality that is at enmity with God. So let’s follow the process of your premise and see where it leads…
Eusebius claims… “man has no free will because he is in the flesh.”
Eusebius likewise makes the audacious claim… “God has no freewill.”
∴ Eusebius’ unavoidable supposition must be… God is in the flesh… this is the only logical conclusion to be deduced; QED.
Maybe Jn 1:14 and 1Tim 3:16 lend weight to this? But is God therefore at enmity with Himself because He is in the flesh?? How can this be?
You see it is EASY to draw such nonsense conclusions WHEN the initial assumptions you are basing your entire argument on are TOTALLY skewed and misplaced!
From the evangelical position I was raised in Paul’s “in the flesh” motif was with regards to the will of man as it outworked through his base desires, passions, heart intent, emotions and behaviour etc; THIS at least being the standard evangelical understanding as per Paul’s usage in the Romans and Galatians passages aforementioned by yourself. You however have simplistically dumbed it right down to meaning mankind’s mere physical attributes.
Good going Eusebius, though I suspect for your own convenience sake such rank literalism magically disappears from view with regards to such detestable physicality which is apparently “at enmity with God” when you read Jesus’ “If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you.”
IMO and based on your own evidence given above… your rationale is demonstrably a sieve and wholly untenable.
Randy, no offense, but from what you are saying in the first part of you post, isn’t this why the Pharisees and Sadducees were suspicious of Jesus?
We already know how to align our will with God’s. Follow Jesus. He is the truth, the light and the way. Do we need to know anything else?
No, that is not what the unavoidable supposition must be. God is spirit. Man is flesh. God is love. Love cannot go against the very dictates of what love is (think of the fruit of the spirit in 1 Corinthians 13 . . . love never lapses. Therefore God is not free to let love lapse.
Don’t be silly. Paul was addressing human believers, not God.
I would agree with you that drawing such conclusions from what I’ve said is nonsense.
Say what you will but it is very clear: the spirit wars against the flesh and the flesh wars against the spirit lest you may do what you want. The flesh is at enmity to God. The spirit is friends with God. In the believer we have a constant struggle going on between the spirit and the flesh. Simple as that. In the resurrection we will be changed to immortal incorruptible and there will no longer be this warring.
If you say so.
Let’s just be thankful that, though we appreciate your opinion, it is just that, an opinion.
Because you obviously do not realize the **complete **redemption our savior extended to the whole of humanity. If I have to explain it, we are obviously on different planets. No offence, but we are on different theological planes.
I’ll elaborate if need be but I’m not up for just bashing about. I really don’t want to do a bible study online. Though there are some who do a whale of a job at it.
That is correct. I liken it to a father and a son. The son throws a rock at the neighbor’s nice picture window and breaks it for fun. The neighbor calls the father. The father pays for the damages. Then he tells the son he must be disciplined for what he did to correct him of his ways. The son says “But father, you already paid for what I did.” Yes, son, I did, but you still need corrective discipline.
And that is how it is even with Christians. Christ died for our sins and offenses. Yet we still need corrective discipline. You see, Christ did not die to save us from corrective discipline. If we look at God correcting the Corinthians, we get the picture. They were adversely judged so as not to be condemned with the world. Some died in that judgment and some got very sick. You can read about it here: 1 Corinthians 11:30-32.
The world is still going to be condemned or judged adversely in the future. But this is to correct them. Then they will enter into death. But at the end of the eons death will be abolished and they will come forth vivified, made immortal and incorruptible.
God is sovereign over all of this. He is sovereign as to forcing the mass of mankind out of their graves and forcing them all to appear before Him so He can forcefully correct them whether they like it or not. Then He is going to sovereignly save them out of sin and death. It is His universe and everyone is born according to His will and will be saved according to His will.
Looks like @Eusebius and I agree on these points. As for Bible verses I like these verses on the positive side of the story.
Luke 16:23, There is a Hades that is used to punish the wicked, even after death.
Matthew 16:18, So Hades serves a temporal purpose, but the gates of Hades will not prevail against God’s eternal plan.
1 Corinthians 15:55, Death and Hades will have no victory! (note there is an important textual variant to this text)
Revelation 20:13, Hades is emptied at the commencement of eternity and mankind finally saved forever, just as promised.
Though @davo we have talked about this before so I am not sure more words will help. If you interpret the Scriptures from a Preterist point of view the verses above will not answer your objections to my understanding. Also one more caveat to my understanding. You might wonder about Revelation 21:8. My understanding is that the Lake of Fire is prepared only for the devil and his angels and so Revelation 21:8 forecasts the doom of the fallen angels, but serves as a warning only for unbelieving mankind. Believing mankind, however, know that they and all mankind are saved from the Lake of Fire through the work of Christ.
“Chastisement does not correct anybody in their relationship to God. Man cannot live under the fear and the dread of a chastising, punishing, correcting God. We must understand that ALL of this took place at the cross—the chastening, the scourging. You may say, “How can you include chastisement in the equation?” Isaiah says, that “the chastisement of our peace was upon him.” Why we drag chastisement into the New Covenant is just beyond me and certainly was beyond Paul. It may simply be because Hebrews Chapter 12 is regularly taught out of context by Christian leaders. The writer says, “Follow peace with all men and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.” We can however do this when we realize what Paul was saying about chastisement, “whereof ALL are partakers,” in Christ Jesus at the cross. No one is a “bastard.” Paul is stepping into the mindset of a Hebrew and attempting to uproot the thought that one could somehow be left outside the work of the cross. Again, without holiness no one will see the Lord, and thank God for Jesus Christ, who was chastised and made us to be partakers so we can share in his holiness! I totally agree! Christianity disagrees. They teach we get to holiness through our faith or belief and our works and our consecration, which they say should correspond with that “change of heart.” Christian doctrine says holiness comes by what you do. I’ll side with the prophets—holiness came through the blood of Jesus Christ.”
Williams, Michael. One: The Gospel According to Mike - Kindle Edition.
That is not what I teach. God’s discipline does not change, help, or hurt, our secure position in God’s love at all. God’s love for all mankind is constant, period. In fact his acts are all loving in order to demonstrate grace and transform us into his likeness. Also your quote above made a sly contextual leap from rejecting discipline and punishment as anti-grace and anti-cross to then saying that those who say God does discipline are advocating works salvation. Very sly maneuver, but totally untrue.
that man (as you seem to allude to) is not at enmity with God 
