Results 1 - 11 of 11
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Submissive or Suppressed Wills | Luke 22:42 | Wild Olive Shoot | 166322 | ||
Mark 14:36 (KJV) And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt. Luke 22:42 (KJV) Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. Matthew 26:39 (KJV) And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. …” and when he prays that this cup might pass from him, his meaning is, that he might be freed from the present horrors of his mind, be excused the sufferings of death, and be delivered from the curse of the law, and wrath of God; which request was made without sin, though it betrayed the weakness of the human nature under its insupportable load, and its reluctance to sufferings and death, which is natural;”… …”That there are two wills in Christ, human and divine, is certain; his human will, though in some instances, as in this, may have been different from the divine will, yet not contrary to it; and his divine will is always the same with his Father's. “– John Gills Exposition of the Entire Bible John 4:34 (KJV) Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. “The Ethiopic version reads, "of my Father that sent me", and who is undoubtedly intended. Now as food is pleasant, and delightful, and refreshing to the body of man, so doing the will of God was as delightful and refreshing to the soul of Christ: he took as much pleasure in it, as an hungry man does in eating and drinking. One part of the will of God was to assume human nature; this he had done, and with delight and pleasure: another part of it was to fulfil the law; and this was in his heart, and was his delight, and he was now doing it: and another branch of it was to suffer and die, in the room and stead of his people; and as disagreeable as this was in itself to the human nature, yet he cheerfully agreed to it; and was sometimes, as it were, impatient till it was accomplished; and he voluntarily became obedient to it: no man could, with greater eagerness, fall to eating, when hungry, than Christ went about his Father's will and work, even that which was most ungrateful to him, as man.” – John Gills Exposition of the Entire Bible Clearly, Christ was of both human and divine natures, coexisting in one. In referencing Matthew 26:39, John Gill points out that Christ’s Human will was in some cases different than His divine, but never contrary to it. In referencing John 4:34, his commentary seems to state that Christ was ever so eager to fulfill the work of which God required, and to which He was obedient in the fullest. I’m not questioning Gill’s commentary. My question concerns the will of man. Unlike Christ, we have only our Human nature and I’m under the impression that our will cannot act outside of that. It seems always to be motivated by that which we desire the most. Since we are given a new nature at conversion, but not fully relieved of our old, our will is able to direct us to act in accordance to God’s. But is our “old nature” will suppressed, or is it simply that our “new nature” will is submissive to God’s? Looking to Christ as our example, I see Him praying in Gethsemane desiring the upcoming horrors to be taken from Him but in never contradicting the will of God, His human will was submissive to the Father’s. Or can we conclude that Christ’s divine will desired the salvation of man more than His human will desired the cup to be taken from Him thus suppressing His human will? My thoughts are along the lines that under the guide of the Holy Spirit, our wills are submissive to God’s and that is truly what the Spirit motivates us to. Enabling us to desire God’s will thereby maintaining a free will given unto us by our Creator. Would truly enjoy thoughts on this. WOS |
||||||
2 | Submissive or Suppressed Wills | Luke 22:42 | mark d seyler | 166411 | ||
Hi WOS, Concerning the regenerate man, consider that the "old man" is to be reckoned as dead. Colossians 3 goes so far as to say that you have died. We are to reckon our members, lit. body parts, that are on this earth as dead. Meanwhile, we are born again, born spiritually, and alive to Christ. Dead to this world, alive to Christ. Rom 6:11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. Our battle against sin is often spoken of as "putting off the old" - the old man, the old manner of life, and so on, and putting on the new: Eph 4:24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. As I understand this, the old man is the one who was born dead, and remains dead, and that we are to reckon dead. The new man is the living spirit which is created in true righteousness and holiness. The new living spirit does not sin, and cannot sin, and when we are "in" (like "dressed in") the new man, we walk in holiness, and do not sin. When we put on the old man, we walk in the flesh, and we sin. So we have a new nature, which does not sin, and an old nature which sins from beginning to end, and between these, that mystery called the "human will". I think of "progressing sanctification" as being the power of the Holy Spirit working through our living spirit to influence and attract us to spend more and more of our lives having "put on" the new man, and walking in the spirit, and less wearing the "old man". Perhaps another way to say this is that the more we are in relationship with God, the less we are deceived by temptation into committing sin. Dead flesh is no match for living spirit, and I believe that the reason a believer sins is because they have allowed themself to think that they can get what they want by their sin. I realize that one could say that what they wanted was sensual gratification, but I think that if we look closely that the true desire goes deeper than that. For some reason, and I share with Doc the lack of a Biblical explaination (as well as the propensity to ramble), God has left us in this inbetween state. I can only imagine that the process of us learning to walk more in the spirit and less in the flesh is good for us. The only way that really make sense to me is that God is training our will, to choose correctly. Somehow, and this seems even more clear as I consider the concept of God's chastening in our lives, it is important to God that we have a will that has learned how to choose right, habituated in choosing correctly, and to be strong in our choices. Following this logic, it seems our choices matter. Struggling to return to your topic, now, I see myself as the as the man who throws the switch between the spirit and the flesh, neither driven entirely by the spirit nor by the flesh. I cannot really say how this compares with Jesus in the days of His flesh, because His was unfallen, being the second Adam. But His temptations must have been as real as mine, and stronger I am certain. Had He simply always resisted the temptations because His divine will overpowered the human will, then I don't know how it could be said that He suffered being tempted. So WOS, I am curious if any of this rambling has any bearing on what you were considering, and what your thoughts might be in return. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
3 | Submissive or Suppressed Wills | Luke 22:42 | Wild Olive Shoot | 166416 | ||
I appreciate the comment that God is training our will as it seems to correlate with progressive sanctification that you and Doc have pointed out. The question as to our submissive or suppressed will is from an attempt to understand better how both our human will and God’s divine will factor into the salvation process and to what extent they are allowed to coexist. Our salvation rests unreservedly with God. But we have a responsibility, which is to acknowledge it. Can we acknowledge God’s grace, His mercy, while acting on our own will, within our human nature? Like you pointed out, with your reference to Eph 4:24, we are told to put on the new self, and Eph 4:30,31 points out we are instructed not to grieve the Spirit and to put away those things that would. It seems we have a responsibility to God after He calls us to be His. So the old and new cohabitate, both natures with their own wills, and it doesn’t seem that both act in unison but the opposite. Depending on our desires, motives, one will does poke through at any given time, dictating our actions so that one must either be suppressed or submissive to the other. For our will to be suppressed is indicative that it is against our will to act in a Godly fashion. To be submissive to God’s will, yielding to it, stays with the concept of retaining a free will by freely letting the Spirit work us. (To be clear, I am speaking of the regenerate and not the reprobate when discussing this) Spurgeon wrote: “We are not saved against our will; nor again, mark you, is the will taken away; for God does not come and convert the intelligent free-agent into a machine. When he turns the slave into a child, it is not by plucking out of him the will which he possesses. We are as free under grace as ever we were under sin; nay, we were slaves when we were under sin, and when the Son makes us free we are free indeed, and we are never free before.” … “But we do hold and teach that though the will of man is not ignored, and men are not saved against their wills, that the work of the Spirit, which is the effect of the will of God, is to change the human will, and so make men willing in the day of God's power, working in them to will to do of his own good pleasure.” I spoke of Christ while praying in Gethsemane for a few reasons. We get a real picture of Christ’s human nature, and what it may have desired. His divine nature and will eagerly wanted His work to be carried out, and that meant going to the cross, but humanly, His desire was to have the cup pass from Him, so strong a desire that it took nothing less than an angel from Heaven to comfort Him. I believe Scripture is clear, in that Christ was tempted in everyway that we are and I agree with your comment, that they were likely stronger than what we could imagine. But Christ did not have a sinful nature. Being divine in nature, He never needed a calling and to be responsive to it since He was in His very person God. When He stated that God’s will be done and not His own, it was from His human perspective that he stated those words but nonetheless, from an uncorrupted nature. Jonathan Edwards wrote: “Nothing can induce or invite the mind to will or act any thing, any further than it is perceived, or is some way or other in the mind’s view; for what is wholly unperceived and perfectly out of the mind’s view, cannot affect the mind at all. It is most evident, that nothing is in the mind, or reaches it, or takes any hold of it, any otherwise than as it is perceived or thought of.” Being unfallen, uncorrupt and sinless, and God by nature, Christ did not perceive and ultimately act upon a sinful mind’s view, or maybe more aptly put, sinning and moving against God’s will wasn’t an option on many levels. We in contrast, have that old corrupted, vile, despicable nature to continually deal with until Glory comes. God calls us to be His and then makes it so. He makes us new, changing our hearts, our desire so that our will submits to His. Maybe our yielding to God’s will, the Spirit actually does suppress our old nature, but it is our submissiveness that is the catalyst. In that I can see your point that we are in essence, the switchman, throwing it from spirit to flesh or I think what my mind has formed an opinion of is not necessarily an on / off switch, but a “dimming” switch. Once God claims us as his, I don’t think He will let us fully flip it off, but we can dim it somewhat as God ultimately controls our destiny. I thank you for your input. I hope I was able to verbalize my opinion in a somewhat comprehensive manner. Sometimes it’s hard to get the thoughts straight in my own mind, let alone trying to convey them to another, without mixing them up and inadvertently leading to them being misconstrued by others. I was hoping maybe that rambling thing wasn’t contagious but it just might be. Sometimes being succinct just isn’t a viable option. Thank you Brother. WOS |
||||||
4 | Submissive or Suppressed Wills | Luke 22:42 | DocTrinsograce | 166420 | ||
Dear Brother WOS and Brother Mark, I tend to agree with much of what Brother Mark has stated. I'd venture at least two general thoughts in regard to his post: 1. Remember that the old versus new man, dead versus living man, etc. are metaphors. They may be very apt, very instructive, and very appropriate -- but they are not the reality itself. Instead, the metaphors seek to expose the truth. However, the truth is far more profound than all the metaphors put together. Regeneration is an incredibly deep and complex work of God. (Just think about it: making trees, butterflies, and planets is utter "kid stuff" by comparison!) I think it is easy to start thinking of the metaphor as the reality, except in the more obvious cases of trees, cups, wheat, tares, etc. 2. Progressive sanctification is, indeed, a work of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, there is a "funny" sort of tension in the Scripture here: it is also a work of our own. This is why verses like Romans 12:2 and Ephesians 4:24 are commands with such interesting components of passivity and activity. We are commanded to diligently persevere, to stridently pursue holiness, etc. etc. The Bible makes no apology for this antinomy. After careful consideration, I believe that the experience of Christ described in Matthew 26 and Luke 22 does not really have anything to say to us regarding the human will. Remember that narrative should never form the basis for doctrine. It will often support or reflect a doctrine, but it never defines it. The conflict we see in Christ is valuable in particular because it shows us how to respond when we are conflicted. To understand the will, we need to look to those passages that didacticly discuss the process by which we choose. Consequently, this is why wrestling with this topic has been difficult: We have started with a faulty premise -- that the apparently conflicted will of Christ reveals something of the nature of man's conflicted will -- which has, in turn, distracted us from the teaching of the human heart elsewhere in the Word. I'm also a bit uncomfortable with the description "submissive versus suppressive" nature of the will. I don't mean to be critical, but that phrase has an almost psychiatric sound to it. The Bible cites the heart as being the origin of all human action. It does not speak of the will of man as a component of his nature. (I believe Jonathan Edwards renders the tacit Scriptural definition of the will more precisely as the mind in the process of choosing.) The heart has, perhaps, a broader definition... but since that is where the Bible focuses, ought we not to focus there as well? I apologize, Brother WOS, if it seems that I'm sidestepping your questions. Where you start, though, has much to do with where you end up. In Him, Doc |
||||||
5 | Submissive or Suppressed Wills | Luke 22:42 | mark d seyler | 166473 | ||
Dear Doc, I thought your two numbered points well said and entirely on the mark (so to speak!). I agree with you completely on those points. Looking at the suffering of Jesus in the garden, when I consider it in light of Hebrews Heb 12 3 For consider Him who endured such hostility from sinners against Himself, lest you become weary and discouraged in your souls. 4 You have not yet resisted to bloodshed, striving against sin. I can see a connection to our striving against sin. The writer of Hebrews is urging us to lay aside our sin, and run our race. Lest we become weary (enduring the attack of our old nature), look to Jesus, Who endured the hostility of from sinners against Himself. When Jesus prayed in the garden, “Father, if it be your will, take this cup away from me”, I believe that Jesus was praying the Father remove the element of suffering that He would experience. Mark 10 38 But Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" 39 They said to Him, "We are able." So Jesus said to them, "You will indeed drink the cup that I drink, and with the baptism I am baptized with you will be baptized; Jesus was not, I think, praying that He would not have to die. “For this cause I came into the world,” He said. I do not think that He wished to avoid paying the price to redeem us. That He would have to bear the guilt of our sins, and endure the righteous wrath of His Father as if He had committed them, this was what He came here to do. This was our redemption. Praise His Name forever!!! The disciples clearly would not partake of these things, these which were for our atonement, but they would suffer and die, with beatings and executions. This was the cup that they would drink, and this was the cup that Jesus prayed would pass from Him. Just as a man jerks his hand back from the flame, and flinches before the crushing blow, we seek to avoid pain and injury . I can only imagine the resolve that Jesus had to have, to march willingly into the hands His demonically driven tormentors. It was, for instance, the Jews who were not to whip a man more than 40 lashes. The Romans had no such prohibition. They would continue until you confessed. And at this time before the actual suffering, knowing what He would suffer, we see Him exerting this extreme effort to remain obedient to the Father. Whether it is our old nature that we are struggling to overcome, or just the natural psychological and physiological responses which God included in our make-up, to protect us in particular situations, and yet must be mastered to be obedient in all situations, we are to strive as did Jesus. Regarding such terms as “suppression” and “submission” of the will, yes, they do sound somewhat technical. I understand them to make a technical distinction between passive and active action. I feel this has a place in discussing what part is us, and what part is God, and also describing the dynamic between old and new natures. I would not have any difficulty using different vocabulary which you wish to use, so long as it expresses the same concepts. Also remember, the heart as the center man is also a metaphor. To the degree that we define that center as some combination of emotion, intellect, personality, and such will affect how we relate the Bible’s teaching to our lives, and to understanding how we function. I sense a new discussion coming up. :-) I am interested in any thoughts you wish to share! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
6 | Submissive or Suppressed Wills | Luke 22:42 | DocTrinsograce | 166500 | ||
Dear Brother Mark, You wrote, "Also remember, the heart as the center man is also a metaphor." (Did you mean inner man?) Actually, the use of the word heart in Scripture is not a metaphor. It is a label. It sounds like a metaphor to modern ears because we think of the heart as an organ in the body. Of course the ancients also knew of this organ and even something of how it functioned. But they thought that it was the seat of consciousness for the human being. We've inherited some of these notions in English, as well, when you consider the alternate meanings of the word that are in common use today. All the etymology aside, the writers of the Bible used heart as a label for that part of man that is invisible, the real essential person. The heart includes: The mind; i.e, the thoughts,? ?beliefs,? ?understandings,? ?memories,? ?judgments,? ?conscience,? ?and discernment (Matthew 13:15; Romans 1:21; Mark 2:6; Luke 24:38; 1 Kings 3:12; 1 Timothy 1:5). The affections; i.e., the longings,? ?desires,? ?feelings,? ?imaginations,? ?and emotions (Psalm 20:4; Ecclesiastes 7:9; Deuteronomy 28:47; 1 Samuel 1:8; Isaiah 35:4; Joshua 14:8; James 3:14; Ecclesiastes 11:9; Psalm 73:7; Hebrews 12:3). The place where the will operates; i.e., the part of the inner person that chooses or determines what actions to take (Deuteronomy 30:19; Joshua 24:15; Isaiah 7:15; Deuteronomy 23:15-16; Psalm 25:12), (It is interesting to note that all three of the above are said to be in operation in Moses in the passage of Hebrews 11:24-27. That's significant because it gives us a Hebraic perspective.) The heart of man is diseased ?(?Genesis? ?6:5?; ?8:21?; ?Psalm? ?51:5?; ?Ecclesiastes? ?9:3?; ?Matthew? ?15:19?; ?Romans? ?7:24-25?), and ?essentially unknowable to himself (Jeremiah 17:9), but completely understood by God (1 Samuel 16:7; 1 Chronicles 28:9; 2 Chronicles 6:30; Psalm 44:21; 139:2; Jeremiah 17:10; John 2:24-25; Acts 1:24; Revelation 2:23). The Word of God can both diagnose the disease as well as offer the prognosis (Hebrews 4:12). In Him, Doc PS Slightly off topic... but... you wrote, "I can only imagine the resolve that Jesus had to have, to march willingly into the hands His demonically driven tormentors." (sic) I know that the devil is mentioned in the influence of Judas, but where are we told that the other men involved in the Crucifiction of Christ were under demonic influence? |
||||||
7 | Submissive or Suppressed Wills | Luke 22:42 | mark d seyler | 166505 | ||
Hi Doc, Good stuff! When I wrote "center man", I meant "center of man". Ok, metaphor, label, when you say that the "writers of the Bible used heart as a label for that part of man that is invisible", yet meanwhile acknowledging that they were aware of the organ and it's funtion, is this not a metaphor? To call an invisible part by the name of the visible? And did they not also consider the gut to also be the seat of some of those invisible things as well? And are their not several passages that make similar statements about the "gut" as the heart? Anyway, no matter. . . But that goes towards why I elected to write "center of man" (or at least, attempted to write!), to get away from the descriptive word that had a greater meaning to the ancients, as we tend to use "heart" as referring to the seat of our emotions only, and not bringing in the rest of the many things you listed as being part of this "essential person". That was my main purpose in this point, was to include in our discussion of this topic all the elements that the ancients would have included. I found your list to be comprehensive, and I appreciate your work towards compiling it. Regarding the demonic influence present at the crucifixion, this is the logical meaning of the reference in 1 Cor 2:8. I would be more specific and factual in saying, rather than demons, fallen angels. Most people do not distinguish between the two, and I have gotten into the bad habit of using the terms interchangably. Anyway, if you disagree with this, let's just set it aside. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
8 | Submissive or Suppressed Wills | Luke 22:42 | DocTrinsograce | 166517 | ||
Dear Mark, No, I can't find anyone suggesting that the heart, in Scripture, is not to be taken literally. The dichotomy and trichotomy stuff entered the world through the pagan Greeks, an idea alien to Hebrews. The Hebrews thought of men as unified beings. Death, an abnormal condition, would be resolved in the resurrection. We also carry around a lot of baggage from Gnostic teachings on this topic. Perhaps it would be helpful to consider the similar way the average American thinks of the brain. The modern man does not expect to cut into a brain and find the real person. The Hebrew would not have expected to cut into a heart and find the real person. The modern man does not use the term brain as a metaphor. The ancient Hebrew man did not use the term heart as a metaphor. Both understand that a blob of tissue exists, but both tend to think of it as somehow containing a man's essence. The "center of man" is probably as good a phrase as any. Essence might work... All our words don't quite sum it up very well. Maybe we shouldn't even try. After all, if the Bible calls it "heart" we should just use the same language, in spite of all the English stuff we carry along with the word. On the other topic: Looking at the context of 1 Corinthians 2:8 one does not find any reference to demons. Paul is assuring his readers that the Gospel is not based in the wisdom of men but the power of God (v5). The comparisons are persuasive speech (v1) versus the testimony of God (v2) and man's wisdom (v4) versus power of the Holy Spirit (v4). The wisdom of the world and the men ruling in the world comes "to nought" (v7), but God's wisdom is eternal and infallible (v7), but is unknown to the men ruling in the world (v8). (Albert Barnes comments on this verse, "referring both to the Jewish rulers, and the Roman governor." John Gill and Matthew Henry concur.) Had the Jewish rulers and Roman governors understood what was involved, they would not have crucified Christ (v8). Sorry, I didn't "just set it aside." I'd really like to know if there is explicit Scriptural support for "demonic influence" in the Crucifiction. I've always assumed that there was -- even before seeing Mel Gibson's movie :-) -- but I hadn't thought it through until your chance comment. After searching the Scriptures I couldn't find an explicit statement to support the view. Now, this doesn't mean that it can't be rightly inferred... after all, we have that Judas passage... I just thought you might have seen a specific Scripture on the topic that I had missed. Questions aren't always challenges, Brother Mark... sometimes they are requests to improve our imperfect understanding. Sorry for getting you upset. In Him, Doc |
||||||
9 | Submissive or Suppressed Wills | Luke 22:42 | mark d seyler | 166519 | ||
Hi Doc, I really do wish that you would not infer me to have a certain emotional state, it tends to get us going in the wrong direction. My comment to "set it aside" was to the intent of not getting completely off topic. Doc, it does not upset me to be challenged, or to be questioned. I do, however, find it difficult when others will not stay on their own side of the fence, as it were, and persist in assuming how I feel, or how I perceive, or how I react within, about things which we have not discussed. I suggest that it would be much more useful to ask, "Have I upset you?", than to simply assume it to be true, and proceed as if that assumption were fact. It might well be equally useful to ask my intent for making some request, or stating a preference, rather than, again, assuming and and accepting as fact that assumption. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
10 | Submissive or Suppressed Wills | Luke 22:42 | DocTrinsograce | 166541 | ||
Dear Brother Mark, I rescind my preemptive apology for upsetting you and, in its stead, apologize for interpreting your choice of words as reflecting an emotional state. Henceforth I will attempt to avoid interpreting your emotional states from your posts, but will, per your suggestion, query you explicitly about any such perceived states. Simultaneously, I would encourage you to learn from these incidents so as to reduce unintended impressions where possible. Effective communication, whether the venue is written or verbal, is a two-way street. Thank you for the correction of my poor interpretive skills, and the efforts to improve the utility of my participation in the forum. In this context and in the light of the post to which I am responding -- while making every effort to "stay on my side of the fence" -- I find myself with a single, burning question: Have I upset you? In Him, Doc |
||||||
11 | Submissive or Suppressed Wills | Luke 22:42 | mark d seyler | 166553 | ||
Hi Doc, Thank you for your kind words. Have you upset me? No, you have not. I am somewhat upset with myself, in letting myself get sidetracked from a discussion that is of great interest to me. Communucation certainly is a two way street, and I agree completely that I would do well to more closely monitor my words. Doc, I just don't want this to be about personalities. When it becomes personal, it takes away from the study of the Word. So let's just focus on that, ok? And leave my feelings, and personal reactions, to me. I truly appreciate your kindness and understanding. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||