Search results

Marks, Not within Post #1. Consider the flow of our conversation that began from Post #1.

Against order and completion, you are skipping my chase in order to arrive to yours.

Marks, Do I need to do all of the heavy lifting to maintain order and completion? The first one I asked you that you still haven't answered (in order beginning from Post #1).

We already began that discussion, Marks. I need your answer in order to continue it.

Already done Marks. Definitions are provided in Post #1.

Where is the contradiction? Of course you did not say that God can be a liar. What does that have to do with our discussion from earlier? To suggest He can be a liar for programming and speaking certain things is to hint that He is not really incapable of lying. I can just as easily say God...

Marks, I don't want you dancing around anything. I want you to answer my question. Order and completion.

Having discussions about a specific type of 'Free Will' and a specific type of Determinism.

Marks, I explained in my previous message that I have comments to make, but I hold back for the sake of a method that we both agreed on (order and completion). Are you perhaps without an answer for my question?

You taught that no choices means no effectual free will, and that God can limit our choices. Yet, you say He does not violate our free will. Therefore, you must believe that limiting effectual free will is not a violation of free will. Am I mistaken?

You believe He controls their free wills, is that correct? If so, what are their wills free from?

I've considered your position more. So that is, you do not consider limiting the freedom of the will to be a violation of the free will. Is that correct? Considering the apparent free will of man, can that which exists by God's power be violated by God's power? Can that which exists by God's...

That you think God can be a liar hints at the amount of reverence you have for Him. What do you mean about God being upset? Perhaps if we define 'upset' and work from there then things might make sense for you.

So you do not consider taking away effectual free will as violating free will, is that correct? Do you think that man's will depends on God's power to exist?

DNB, were my questions not worthy of answering? I can just as easily say that the Levitical Law was meaningful, and the decree to be obedient and 'holy as He is holy' was completely meaningful and amazing. The death penalty for adultery, murder and breaking the Sabbath would be meaningful and...

I don't think I fully understand. Is that yes as in it would have not been spectacular?

I appreciate you being in the conversation, even as you entered casually. I think there was no harm done, and we're all here discussing.

Are the children depending on the power of their parents to exist? If not, then the children certainly do have a sense of free will relative to their parents, and I grant that the parents would have a sense of control over their children. Do you believe that both the children and the parents...

Sure we are, but not necessarily. When you say: - "nothing spectacular in being sovereign, when you have everyone hard-wired to do your will" Do you not mean that there is nothing spectacular in being sovereign when nothing is there with ability to deny your will? If that is what you mean...

Thanks for clarifying. If He does not control some of man's choices, then He does not control all things. If God doesn't cause people to do evil things, then who does? Scripture to consider: Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all...