Free Will
- Thread starter rdventen
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You complain about the label Calvinist but then tell us we don't understand what they believe... very curious. And Calvinists ALWAYS say people don't understand what they believe. That's very typical. And there's nothing hyper about what we're saying; it's the very core and foundation of the TULIP. What they call 'hyper' is when someone takes the TULIP to its logical conclusions: no point in evangelization, no point in arguing, no point in anything at all. At least the hypers are consistent.
Yes, it's doublespeak to say that we can choose "good" but can't choose the gospel. This makes a mockery of a large portion of scripture that tells us to choose between following God and rejecting His ways. There is simply no purpose in having the Bible or Jesus dying for our sins if God predetermines who would be saved in eternity past. Our good deeds are a cruel illusion from God if "it means nothing". I'm not confused at all, but these Calvinistic beliefs surely are.
Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
Acts 17:27
God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.
[font="Verdana][size="4"][/size][/font]
What? This is Replacement Theology, not exegesis. Eze. had nothing at all to do with the church, which nobody in the OT had any inkling about. The church did NOT replace Israel. Read Galatians again and note that Paul is saying there are TWO contracts: the Law and the Promise. They are separate; one did not negate the other. The Promise has to do with faith but the Law with physical Israel alone. God never said that the church replaced Israel but that in Christ we are a NEW, third entity or creature. IN CHRIST there is no distinction, but not all Israel is in Christ, and God has not finished the prophecies and promises He made to Israel yet. Also note Romans 11:25 -- "I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in."
Yes it is, I've read lots of their literature. I spent a number of years in a Calvinist board and they hammered this constantly, and would resent being labeled as hyper since they believe in evangelization.
Which means we have free will, and that choice is not taken away on the most important point of all: salvation. God's sovereignty is not threatened by man's free will, since God chose freely to grant it to us. Again, a love that had no choice is no love at all.
No, it's just debating a belief or claim. Everybody feels personally attacked when issues they hold dearly are challenged. But it's a good and healthy exercise.
Men excuse God for unending divine retribution by insisting that man
has done it to himself by his own free will. But this is inconsistent
theology. One man's sin was imposed upon "the many" apart from
any decision by their own free will. God imputed Adam's sin to all
succeeding generations even though they had not sinned in the
similitude of Adam's sin (Rom. 5:13). Man's mortality is proof of this.
If the law of imputation of Adam's sin must affect all men negatively,
how can men apply the same law unequally to Christ's conciliatory
work on the cross?
The law judges impartially and with equality (equity). The will of man
was not consulted before imputing Adam's sin to all; neither was the
will of man consulted before imputing the righteousness of Christ to
all. Both were acts of God alone. Hence, God was in Christ
conciliating the world by the standard of divine love alone. By such
love Christ dies, not for His friends alone, but also for His enemies.
This is the whole point of distinguishing man's love from God's love.
Many men will die for a friend or family member, but Christ has died
for the ungodly and even for those who hated Him.
Is there no lasting beneficial effect of such love upon the one who
dies without conciliating God in return? Is God so helpless? Is He a
God who weeps while torturing people in order to conform to a law
that would go against His loving nature? No, the law is the very
expression of His character, and hence, the law is based entirely on
love. On love hangs the entire law and the prophets.
No law is based on love unless it is designed to correct the
lawbreaker. The conciliation will have its full effect because it was
not based upon the will of man, but upon God's will alone. Man's
opposition will not succeed in the end, because his will is not
stronger than God's, nor is he capable, in the end, of resisting
such perfect love.
All of man's resistance is time-based and is therefore limited in
duration. The authority that men enjoy, based upon the Dominion
Mandate in Gen. 1:26, is no match for the sovereignty of God that
He retained for Himself. There is no force on earth that can prevent
the divine plan from being fulfilled. The devil does not win in the
end, nor does God play the role of the sore loser.
The law of God is an expression of love emanating from His very
Being. Hence, it is described as "fire" (Deut. 33:2), even as the
baptism of fire is, to us, the saturation of His character and essence.
There is no fire of God that can be separated from His love, for God
will be God, and He must always be true to Himself.
While the "lake of fire" is indeed a place of divine judgment, it is where
all men learn the character of God. Even believers today are in training
by means of the baptism of fire. We are trained now in order to obtain
a better and earlier resurrection. He is the Savior of all men, especially
those who believe.
This "fire" is also the glory of God which came down upon Sinai and
which will ultimately cover the whole earth (Num. 14:21). God will be
glorified, and every creature in heaven and in earth will be found
praising Him when the four beasts finally say "Amen."
Logabe
Ah, Universalism, the "evil twin" of Calvinism.
Adam's sin was not imposed on humanity, but only his mortality and a cursed earth. This is not imposing guilt but only consequences. But God provided the remedy and it is available by faith alone. How hard is that? How much is God asking of us? Penance? Work? No, only trust. This is very consistent theology.
Christ reconciled the world to God, but reconciliation cannot be forced on the other party, even by God. That is why Paul gave the "you are reconciled / be reconciled" message in 2 Cor. 5:18-21. God has reached out to us in Christ without our asking, but in turn He asks (not demands) that each individual reach back voluntarily. Again, He isn't asking for much or making it complicated. How unfair is this solution to the terrible consequences of Adam's blunder? How unjust is it?
Universalism is a great injustice of its own, because it treats the murderer and the victim alike. It renders this life irrelevant and a waste of effort, since the end result will be the same for everyone. The one who comes to Christ in this life often has great persecution as a result, so it would make more sense for there to be no gospel, no Christianity, no Bible, and let people be happy. After all, God will make them His no matter what-- which is the "evil twin" of Calvinism's predestination. I say "evil" because at least Calvinism preaches the gospel, while Uni doesn't really have anything to stand on.
But just like Calvinism, Uni wants to make God helpless if He doesn't force people to be saved. But how so? How is God helpless if He allows us to choose or reject Him? If you could force someone to love you, would you do it? Why not? So why would God?
God is surely sovereign, but that sovereignty does not exist in a moral vacuum. Love must be free and un-coerced, which cannot be the case if it is only extracted after torment. So the purpose of hell is not correction at all, but simply the place for people who did not want to be reconciled to God to spend eternity.
And personally, I find likening the fire of the Lake of Fire to the glory of God to be blasphemous.
Why doesn't anyone post the scriptures that speak of our being able to choose? Or does no one know of them?
This seems strikingly familiar to the habit to always put forth scriptures that speak of God's love, and virtually never of His hatred, anger, wrath, judgment, jealousy, holiness, etc..
Could there possibly be a poor result in our lives by our emphasizing one aspect of something to the extent of ignoring many other aspects?
Christendom has the same sinful statistics as the unsaved. If we have been set free, how can that be? The first few posts had these scriptures, but look at the statistics.
Somebody, somewhere, hasn't been set free, even though they say that they have been.
A lot of them, apparently.
Is that free will? Or slavery?
Either way, it would appear that Christendom hasn't yet been set free, else they wouldn't keep sinning.
I know that people consider these two things to be different topics, but one cannot discuss free will without looking at one's heart and life, and seeing the facts of it. If one still sins, what kind of spiritual freedom from sin is that? That's hardly being dead to it, and alive to righteousness.
I fail to understand how one can discuss free will, when they aren't free from sin in their hearts/minds. Kind of like the life prisoner who has never been out of jail more than a few hours at a time, discussing the ins and outs of freedom.
This seems strikingly familiar to the habit to always put forth scriptures that speak of God's love, and virtually never of His hatred, anger, wrath, judgment, jealousy, holiness, etc..
Could there possibly be a poor result in our lives by our emphasizing one aspect of something to the extent of ignoring many other aspects?
Christendom has the same sinful statistics as the unsaved. If we have been set free, how can that be? The first few posts had these scriptures, but look at the statistics.
Somebody, somewhere, hasn't been set free, even though they say that they have been.
A lot of them, apparently.
Is that free will? Or slavery?
Either way, it would appear that Christendom hasn't yet been set free, else they wouldn't keep sinning.
I know that people consider these two things to be different topics, but one cannot discuss free will without looking at one's heart and life, and seeing the facts of it. If one still sins, what kind of spiritual freedom from sin is that? That's hardly being dead to it, and alive to righteousness.
I fail to understand how one can discuss free will, when they aren't free from sin in their hearts/minds. Kind of like the life prisoner who has never been out of jail more than a few hours at a time, discussing the ins and outs of freedom.
Jimmy Engle
New Member
If you cannot understand what I mean then that is fine. I'm trying my best to explain this. The simple fact is that we all have free will. We can chose if we want to kill someone or if we want to help someone. We can chose to steal money or donate money. We can chose to do many things which can be good or bad morally. But the point I was making is this, although we have freewill we do not have good will. It is because of this that when we do perform good deeds, they are viewed as unacceptable by God or filthy rags. Are "righteousness" is viewed as corrupt because it is coming out of a corrupt heart that needs to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Sin affects every part of us to the point where although we may still do good, we still are in rebellion against God and are not righteous at all. That is why it says in Romans that we suppress the truth in unrighteousness. We take the truth we know about God and suppress it because we are unrighteous....the darkness hates the light and therefore no one seeks after God.
Hebrews 6:4-8 isn't referring to salvation at all. It doesn't speak of repentance or faith or anything pertaining to salvation at all.
Verse 4 - enlightenment - They had received instruction in biblical truth which was accompanied by intellectual perception. Understanding the gospel is not the equivalent of regeneration. In John 1:9 it is clear that enlightening is not the equivalent of salvation.
tasted of the heavenly gifts - Tasting in the figurative sense in the NT refers to consciously experiencing something. The experience might be momentary or continuing. Christ's "tasting" of death v 2:9, was obviously momentary and not continuing or permanent. All men experience the goodness of God, but that does not mean they are all saved (Matthew 5:45, Acts 17:25). Many Jews, during the Lord's earthly ministry experienced the blessings from heaven He brought, in healing and deliverance from demons, as well as eating the food he created miraculously (John 6). Whether the gift refers to Christ (John 6:51; 2 Corinthians 9:15) or to the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 1:12), experiencing either one was not the equivalent of salvation (John 16:8; Acts 7:51).
partakers of the Holy Spirit - Even though the concept of partaking is used in 3:1; 3:14 and 12:8 of a relationship which believers have, the context must be the final determining factor. This context in verses 4-6 seems to preclude a reference to true believers. It could be a reference to their participation, as noted above, in the miraculous ministry of Jesus who was empowered by the Spirit or in the convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8) which obviously ban be resisted without experiencing salvation (Acts 7:51).
, the "evil twin" of Calvinism.
Adam's sin was not imposed on humanity, but only his mortality and a cursed earth. This is not imposing guilt but only consequences. But God provided the remedy and it is available by faith alone. How hard is that? How much is God asking of us? Penance? Work? No, only trust. This is very consistent theology.
Christ reconciled the world to God, but reconciliation cannot be forced on the other party, even by God. That is why Paul gave the "you are reconciled / be reconciled" message in 2 Cor. 5:18-21. God has reached out to us in Christ without our asking, but in turn He asks (not demands) that each individual reach back voluntarily. Again, He isn't asking for much or making it complicated. How unfair is this solution to the terrible consequences of Adam's blunder? How unjust is it?
Universalism is a great injustice of its own, because it treats the murderer and the victim alike. It renders this life irrelevant and a waste of effort, since the end result will be the same for everyone. The one who comes to Christ in this life often has great persecution as a result, so it would make more sense for there to be no gospel, no Christianity, no Bible, and let people be happy. After all, God will make them His no matter what-- which is the "evil twin" of Calvinism's predestination. I say "evil" because at least Calvinism preaches the gospel, while Uni doesn't really have anything to stand on.
But just like Calvinism, Uni wants to make God helpless if He doesn't force people to be saved. But how so? How is God helpless if He allows us to choose or reject Him? If you could force someone to love you, would you do it? Why not? So why would God?
God is surely sovereign, but that sovereignty does not exist in a moral vacuum. Love must be free and un-coerced, which cannot be the case if it is only extracted after torment. So the purpose of hell is not correction at all, but simply the place for people who did not want to be reconciled to God to spend eternity.
And personally, I find likening the fire of the Lake of Fire to the glory of God to be blasphemous.
Hi SaberTruth...I appreciate your post and your ability to figure
out what denomination you are speaking with. Are you ready
for this...I agree totally that Universalism does a great injustice.
Ummm...you labeled me wrong.
So the question becomes, why do men feel the need to question
God's sovereignty and establish the idea of their own free will?
There are three basic motives for the maintenance of free will
among men.
The first element is human pride and man's need to do
something in himself in order to be saved. Man wants God
to think that he (man) has come to Him on his own initiative,
so that God will be pleased with man's decision. In other words,
“I have some participation in my salvation. It is a cooperative
effort between God and me. God can do nothing without me, as
much as I can do nothing without God.” We hear much about
this cooperative effort. Well, I agree that on one level it appears
that we need to cooperate with God – at least on the surface –
and I have no real problem with that. My question is: Who is it
that implanted the idea within our heart to make us cooperate
with God?
The second motive behind the idea of free will is that the Adamic
self-life is still very much alive. The self-life wants to maintain
itself and survive. It does not want to die. It is the carnal mind,
and it uses man's ego to focus upon man. It makes man's will
the originator of all his decisions. Man becomes the measure of
all things, as philosophers have said. Essentially, at its core it is
a humanistic view of the world.
Thirdly, and perhaps most important for our purposes, the reason
for the free will idea is the need to explain the existence of evil in
the world in a way that does not make God liable for it. In other
words, if God is sovereign (we are asked), then why does He
allow all this human suffering to take place? People always bring
up all of the terrible events that happen and continue to happen. If
God really were sovereign, then why does He not do something
about the world's problems? Surely He cannot be held responsible!
To absolve God of any responsibility for evil in the world, many
Christian theologians today feel the need to take back most of
God's sovereignty. First they attribute the sovereignty to God, and
then they take it all back and give most of it to the devil and to man.
Free will, when taken to its logical conclusion, removes all
sovereignty from God leaving Him totally impotent to do anything
but stand on the sidelines and threaten people with ever-increasing
punishment. He stands there and hopes and hopes and hopes
that somebody will listen, but He is impotent to actually do anything.
Little wonder, then, that so many Christians live in fear of the devil,
rather than by faith in God. While they express faith in God with their
lips, they go home believing that God is in serious need of help to
accomplish His goals on earth.
When the spirit of God inhabits your body, you still sin because of
your own free will, right? But when the devil inhabits your body and
you still sin, then you have no free will – the devil made you do it.
Why is this? We are told that the devil can override your free will,
but then God cannot. Is that not interesting? Is it any wonder that
in the end the devil wins at least 99% of humanity?
Logabe
Thanks!... but I wasn't labeling you, just your argument.
This is a false dilemma; God's sovereignty is not threatened or contradicted by man's free will. In fact, God has the sovereign right to grant man free will. And once again, a love coming from a will that is not free is not a love worthy of God.
Judging motives is dangerous ground. Nobody disagrees that it is pride which many people cannot lay down before God. But it has nothing to do with "the maintenance" of free will, but simply recognizing that God's sovereignty allows it because it is the only way for us to truly return His love.
Scripture tells us plainly that we are made in God's image. Logic tells us plainly that only love from a free will is true love. But if we want to blame Satan for something, let's do so accurately: it is Satan who would consign souls to hell without giving them any choice in the matter.
There is no escaping the conclusion that if man has no free will, then God is responsible for man's pseudo-choice to reject Him. Methinks Calvinism protesteth too loudly about the need to extract God from what he necessarily causes without man's free will.
The problem of what God allows is best answered by free will, and the fact that when Adam sinned he essentially handed over the world to Satan:
[font="Verdana][size="2"]
[/font][/size]
[font="Verdana][size="4"]So the real question is why anything good happens. Please see my article Holding Satan's Leash for more.
[/font]
[/size]
This is a straw man I already pointed out. (#64)
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Sabertruth - I spent years watching people debate Calvinists and debating James White, myself; I have rarely found opponents of Calvinism who are able to articulate their position like you can - I have really enjoyed reading your posts.
BTW, I am not a universalist, but I am attracted to the idea - unfortunately, even though Christ died for everyone, not every heart will realize it. I think of it like a farmer planting his entire field - not every seed will germinate.
Peace
BTW, I am not a universalist, but I am attracted to the idea - unfortunately, even though Christ died for everyone, not every heart will realize it. I think of it like a farmer planting his entire field - not every seed will germinate.
Peace
Thanks aspen!
Speaking of James White, you might be interested in my opinion of the Dave Hunt / Jame White book Debating Calvinism.
I understand what you're saying about wishing Uni were true. After all, we can't imagine sending nice people to hell for lack of faith. But trusting God's balance of justice and mercy, I'm sure that if we knew all that God knows, we'd agree that there are more issues in this than meet the eye. All I know for sure is that God's revealed nature cannot blame people for things they can't control. Philosophically, "I am responsible, therefore I have free will."
In this thread there are A LOT of scriptures showing we have a choice. I can hardly believe you said that.
Here is just one for now: 2 Thessalonians 2:10 ".....They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved."
Oh so if it doesn't speak of faith or repentance, it has nothing to do with Salvation.
Which means that Rev. (3:20) must ahve nothing to do with salvation either, I don't see repentance or faith in there either:
(Rev 3:20) Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Truth is (Heb.6:4-8) does say in it: "...If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance..." which means they would have repented previously.
So twist that as you may, to support your Calvinistic views, a normal, non scholarly individual will most assuredly interpret that passage the same way I do without having to go through the convoluted rhetoric you're having to put forth.
Anyways I didn't want to debate this verse, so I should not have quoted it in the first place knowing full well that you would ignore all my other questions and jump on this verse for debate.
Cheers
I would just like to add my agreement to this post.
Thank You Sabertruth for your thuroughness (if that's a word).
Thank you for your the kind words.
Cheers
Jimmy Engle
New Member
DiDasKaLos - Revelation 3:20 is talking about a church...not an individual believer. Rather than allowing for the common interpretation of Christ's knocking on a person's heart, the context demands that Christ was seeking to enter this church that bore His name but lacked a single true believer. this poignant letter was His knocking. If one member would recognize his spiritual bankruptcy and respond in saving faith, He would enter the church.
Hebrews 4 is talking about a person who is sitting under the preaching of the gospel and take that gospel and reject it even after coming to the full knowledge of what God did through His Son on the cross. We cannot assume they were saved simply because the text doesn't say it. The only things this text says is that they sat under preaching, came to full knowledge and they obviously rejected it which is the same as crucifying Christ a second time. Of course they cannot be restored to repentance that leads to salvation...they are rejecting Christ twice...they suppressed the truth in unrighteousness and then when they learned the truth in detail they again rejected it...a form of apostasy. They rejected Christ in full knowledge and conscious experience as described in the features of verses 5 and 6.With full revelation they rejected the truth, concluding the opposite of the truth about Christ, and thus had no hope of being saved, They can never have more knowledge than they had when they rejected it. They have concluded that Jesus should have been crucified, and they stand with his enemies. There is no possibility of these verses referring to losing salvation. Many scripture passages make it unmistakably clear that salvation is eternal (John 10:27-29; Romans 8:35,38,39; Philippians 1:6, 1 Peter 1:4,5).
Hebrews 4 is talking about a person who is sitting under the preaching of the gospel and take that gospel and reject it even after coming to the full knowledge of what God did through His Son on the cross. We cannot assume they were saved simply because the text doesn't say it. The only things this text says is that they sat under preaching, came to full knowledge and they obviously rejected it which is the same as crucifying Christ a second time. Of course they cannot be restored to repentance that leads to salvation...they are rejecting Christ twice...they suppressed the truth in unrighteousness and then when they learned the truth in detail they again rejected it...a form of apostasy. They rejected Christ in full knowledge and conscious experience as described in the features of verses 5 and 6.With full revelation they rejected the truth, concluding the opposite of the truth about Christ, and thus had no hope of being saved, They can never have more knowledge than they had when they rejected it. They have concluded that Jesus should have been crucified, and they stand with his enemies. There is no possibility of these verses referring to losing salvation. Many scripture passages make it unmistakably clear that salvation is eternal (John 10:27-29; Romans 8:35,38,39; Philippians 1:6, 1 Peter 1:4,5).
Excellent post, James.
It is so refreshing to see someone who understands scripture with scripture.
What a pleasant change to see that beliefs aren't brought to the table and the scriptures chosen and ignored accordingly.
Blessings.
Both the OT and the NT have examples of being rejected by God, but still having the Spirit come upon them and doing miraculous things. Take Saul for example. Rejected by God, told so by Samuel, and then Saul leaves Samuel and chugs along and comes across the prophets, the spirit of God comes upon him, and he prophesies for days. Hmmm.
Take Judas, the guy that betrayed Christ, who the scriptuers state is damend, even his offspring. Wow. But he also did miracles right along with the other disciples. Was sent out by Christ to do this, on more than one occasion. Hmmm.
There is a huge, huge difference between being "of" the faith, and "in" the faith, to use those words as a differentiation. One can partake, hang around with (such as wolves in sheeps' clothing!), but not be OF the faith, not be born of God. They have partaken, obviously, but are not OF God, ie, not born again. Modern, current examples of this are known also. So we have the OT, the NT, and current examples of it, not just the scriptures stating these things for us in far more than one place.
If we have been taught to believe a certain way on any given topic, when we read the scriptures, we will read them with that mindset that we have been taught to believe. But what if that's wrong? Seems to be quite frequent. And that's not a personal perspective. The scriptures state this to be fact. Even named names. Ooops. How inconsiderate of God! But we consider it arrogant, condecending, blind and bigoted, and outright intolerant, to do the same thing: call a spiritual spade a spiritual spade.
O well. We were told that this would happen to us, too, for it happened to the prophets, Christ, and the apostles.
Some things just don't change.
Post #1 No scripture for choice
#2 no scripture for choice
#3 no scripture for choice
#4 no scripture for choice
#5 no scripture for choice -- the dude is a slave to what he DOESN'T want to do!
#6 had one that could be used for that, but it doesn't state it. I will grant that one, though.
#7 no scripture for choice
#8 no scripture for choice
#9 no scripture for choice
#10 no scripture for choice This post gave two, but they do not openly state free choice, and are actively used by those who believe no free choice.
#11no scripture for choice
#12no scripture for choice
#13no scripture for choice
#14no scripture for choice
#15no scripture for choice
#16no scripture for choice
#17no scripture for choice
#18no scripture for choice
#19no scripture for choice
#20no scripture for choice
#21no scripture for choice
#22no scripture for choice
#23no scripture for choice
#24no scripture for choice
#25no scripture for choice
#26no scripture for choice
#27no scripture for choice
#28no scripture for choice
#29no scripture for choice
#30 is your post, and you gave 3 that can be used to support choice, but they do not state choice. How do we not know that they love those that love, and hate those that hate, by God's decree? Or that they love those that hate them, by God's decree or woking in them to do it? (He works in us both to desire and to do His perfect will, for example?) I will grant you these three, but they do not state free choice, per se. So technically, I still hold that none have been given, that can be argued against.
#31 no scripture for choice
#32 no scripture for choice
#33 no scripture for choice
#34 no scripture for choice
#35 no scripture for choice
#36 FINALLY GAVE ONE! Good stuff. This one is so blunt, it cannot be argued with except those who willfully choose to forget. Hey, could that be one being referred to here?
#37no scripture for choice
#38no scripture for choice
#39no scripture for choice
#40no scripture for choice
#41no scripture for choice
#42no scripture for choice
#43no scripture for choice
#44no scripture for choice
#45no scripture for choice
#46no scripture for choice
#47no scripture for choice
#48no scripture for choice
#49no scripture for choice
#50no scripture for choice
#51no scripture for choice
#52no scripture for choice
#53no scripture for choice
#54no scripture for choice
#55no scripture for choice
#56no scripture for choice
#57no scripture for choice
#58 Here you gave a fair number of scriptures. Good. I really like seeing that. 2 Thessalonians 2:10 supports free choice. Jer. 5:23 can be used for support of free choice, but it is also decried by the nay-sayers of free choice. Some of the other scriptures are actively used for purporting no free choice. All the others are used for both camps, depending upon one's predispostion on this topic. So I see that you actually only gave one scripture that openly stated free choice. Some of the others openly stated that God hardened their hearts. Poor choice of scriptures to "bolster" free choice, it would seem. If one gives scripture, they must be undeniably clear for one's position, and definitely not used by the other camp to state a case against you. We must use undeniable scriptures, I think. I could be wrong, though.
So far, the count is 3 scriptures, with one flat out saying it, the other two giving no option in the matter but free choice, it would seem to be clear on.
#59no scripture for choice
#60no scripture for choice
#61no scripture for choice
#62 three scriptures were given -- Heb. 11:6, and Acts 17:27. Heb. 11:6 can be used for the no choice side of the debate. Again, that verse depends upon one's view coming into the fray. Acts 17:27 is used the same way. So is Rom. 11:25
I agree with you, and with Saber on this topic, but these scriptures are used by the other camp. Obviously, then, there's issue with them being used for free choice. We are still at one blunt scripture, and two "no other option" scriptures, to use that phrase freely in this case.
#63no scripture for choice
#64no scripture for choice
#65 was my post that you took issue with in which I stated that no one gave scripture for the free choice side of the debate.
Yes, I used a broad stroke of the brush and painted all with it, errantly. My apologies. Thank you for the correction.
However, it seems that very little indeed was actually given from scripture that flat out states free choice. So far, "free choice" has 3, but only one undeniable scripture by the other camp. "no choice" has a lot more than three. It was upon this that I made my statement. Sorry.
It looks like there's been a few given since then. But is there a whole slug of them, or not?
This is in reply to your own post #75 which I might add has no scripture that you quoted in support of your views.
Humm, sounds hypocritical to me.
Mat( 7:3-5) And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Cheers
So the letters to the Churches in Revelation should not be used for individual purpose, in other words there is nothing to glean from them for individual purposes. Should I use the same logic for the letters to the Corinthians, Galatians, etc.
Oh and how does that logic work with the Letter to the Ephesians and the one to Ephesus?
Cheers
You must be looking for a hypocrite behind every bush. All I asked for was scripture that clearly states that there is free choice. I have not posted for or against the issue, although I did state that I agree with Saver and Anastasia (sp) that I agree with them. I've merely been looking for posted scripture for the free choice stance. How is that hypocritical? If I get into the mix, and state things for free choice, then I should give scripture for those statements. If I state against it, then I should give scripture against it. I think that you have a perception issue with me. O well.
Your next post I think is good, holding equal logic for various scriptures, which the poster that you decry doesn't do, which is quite poor.
I see no need to jump into the fray, as it appears that people are not open to looking at scriptures from "both" sides of the debate. Until that happens, no matter how many "clear" scriptues are given, no matter which side they "support", they will not be accepted by the other side. I can't countenance that mindset/heart state, as I think it not of the Lord. It seems that few, and yes, there appeared to be at least one, can scripturally reconcile the "opposing" scriptures.
Until then, is this thread revealing an "arguing over the meaning of words, to the destruction of the hearers"? Sometimes it seems to be common, and sometimes I don't know.
Haven't tossed my hat into the ring yet, just making observations. Sorry that that's hypocritical to you. Perhaps a dictionary definition of hypocrite might clear up the misunderstanding on your part. I hope so. I've appreciated a number of your posts on various threads.
Point well taken, I apologize brother, and stand corrected.
I'm not into witch hunting, nevertheless I accept your reproof.
Cheers & God Bless
Similar threads
