ANALYSIS OF MATTHEW 24:12-13 - WHY IT DISPROVES OSAS

  • 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!

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
FHII said:
Tom55,

You have passion going for you... Ill give you that. But other than that not much else. I'm done discussing the issue with you.

You may commence parting insults.
Thank you FHII......My passion is I don't like to see lies posted about scripture or attacks of my Christian brothers on this site. (On this site the attacks are against our Catholic brothers.)

My passion is I don't like to see someone saying Strong's definition backs up my definition but I refuse to give you proof that I am right. If you can't prove what you say, then don't say it. I proved what I said!!

My passion is getting people to come to a logical conclusion to their illogical (or un-factual) statements/beliefs by asking them a series of questions. IF they would honestly answer those questions they would see how illogical or wrong they are. Some people just don't want to know they truth, however, they love to bloviate about THEIR truth which doesn't conform with logic, scripture or history.

I suspect your were trying to get me to NOT respond to you by making the fallacious statement, "You may commence parting insults." That way if I do respond it automatically makes my response an insult? Once again, not logical. If you feel anything I typed above is an insult then you have thin skin or you are twisting the word insult like you did the word predestination. I know my words/responses to you are very direct and make you uncomfortable because you know if you answered them honestly it would lead you to realize that what you are saying is fallacious. That does not equate to insults!!

Thank you for carrying on as long as you did with this conversation. At any point if you want to answer any of my questions I will gladly re-engage you. I am not mad at you for not answering my questions and love you like you are my brother.
 

Dcopymope

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2016
2,650
800
113
36
Motor City
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
FHII said:
Was it from my response to Wormwood that you came to these conclusions, or hace you read more of my posts in this thread? Reason is because i didn't mention anything like that in my last post.

Nontheless, i understand the thought process. If i do say that some are oredestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus, then logically some aren't. Or maybe they are just "free agents" who could go either way.

Dcopymope... Would you care to explain 2 Peter 2:12 to me?

Taking the verse into the context of the chapter, I see nothing in it about some being made from the womb to not believe. The verse in context, has nothing at all to do with pre-destination at all. Of course, as I see from many Christians, and heathens across the wide spectrum of society, its easy to rob a sentence of its context if you aren't reading the entire chapter at hand. The chapter in a nutshell is all about warning against False teachers denying Christs blood atonement for our sins who give themselves up to their own fleshly, beastly desires.
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Dcopymope said:
Taking the verse into the context of the chapter, I see nothing in it about some being made from the womb to not believe. The verse in context, has nothing at all to do with pre-destination at all. Of course, as I see from many Christians, and heathens across the wide spectrum of society, its easy to rob a sentence of its context if you aren't reading the entire chapter at hand. The chapter in a nutshell is all about warning against False teachers denying Christs blood atonement for our sins who give themselves up to their own fleshly, beastly desires.
I will be happy to go trough the entire chapter with you if you like.

Did you see the phrase, "made to be taken and destroyed"? What does that mean? Does that mean that if they don't do well they will be destroyed or does ir mean that they are made to be taken and destroyed?

Absolutely its about false teachers. And such are made to be taken and destroyed. That's what it says.

I will add something... Real natural brute beasts (lions, tigers, bears) were never meant to be destroyed. They are ferocious. They are a threat to men. They gotta be killed if they threaten us.... But they never sinned against God. Thwy never were made to be destroyed.
 

Dcopymope

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2016
2,650
800
113
36
Motor City
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
FHII said:
I will be happy to go trough the entire chapter with you if you like.

Did you see the phrase, "made to be taken and destroyed"? What does that mean? Does that mean that if they don't do well they will be destroyed or does ir mean that they are made to be taken and destroyed?

Absolutely its about false teachers. And such are made to be taken and destroyed. That's what it says.

I will add something... Real natural brute beasts (lions, tigers, bears) were never meant to be destroyed. They are ferocious. They are a threat to men. They gotta be killed if they threaten us.... But they never sinned against God. Thwy never were made to be destroyed.
Nothing was "made to be taken and destroyed" from the beginning, up until Adam sinned, for which all flesh shall be destroyed as the wages of sin is death. If you want to rob it of its context and compare the relationship between man and beast with the blood of atonement, it still has nothing to do with predestination. They were made to be taken and destroyed because they soak themselves in iniquity while pretending to be men and women of God. Jesus Christ didn't just come here to die for your sins, he came here to die for the heavens and the earth and the all the host of them. Without all creation being reconciled unto Jesus on the cross you cannot have the new heavens and earth. The gospel isn't just about mans relationship with God. If it was true that some were made in the womb only to be destroyed, then Jesus was wasting his time preaching the gospel unto the dead before his Resurrection, and God was a liar when he said it was never his wish that anybody should perish.
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Dcopymope said:
Nothing was "made to be taken and destroyed" from the beginning, up until Adam sinned, for which all flesh shall be destroyed as the wages of sin is death. If you want to rob it of its context and compare the relationship between man and beast with the blood of atonement, it still has nothing to do with predestination. They were made to be taken and destroyed because they soak themselves in iniquity while pretending to be men and women of God. Jesus Christ didn't just come here to die for your sins, he came here to die for the heavens and the earth and the all the host of them. Without all creation being reconciled unto Jesus on the cross you cannot have the new heavens and earth. The gospel isn't just about mans relationship with God. If it was true that some were made in the womb only to be destroyed, then Jesus was wasting his time preaching the gospel unto the dead before his Resurrection, and God was a liar when he said it was never his wish that anybody should perish.
Even with all that, it STILL says they were MADE to be taken and destroyed. It does not say they counted themselves unworthy (that is in the Bible in other places), it says they were "made".

God never said it was never his intention that any should perish. I know the verse you are referring to, but you are not reading the whole verse. So becareful to throw verses around.
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Dcopymope said:
Nothing was "made to be taken and destroyed" from the beginning, up until Adam sinned, for which all flesh shall be destroyed as the wages of sin is death. If you want to rob it of its context and compare the relationship between man and beast with the blood of atonement, it still has nothing to do with predestination. They were made to be taken and destroyed because they soak themselves in iniquity while pretending to be men and women of God. Jesus Christ didn't just come here to die for your sins, he came here to die for the heavens and the earth and the all the host of them. Without all creation being reconciled unto Jesus on the cross you cannot have the new heavens and earth. The gospel isn't just about mans relationship with God. If it was true that some were made in the womb only to be destroyed, then Jesus was wasting his time preaching the gospel unto the dead before his Resurrection, and God was a liar when he said it was never his wish that anybody should perish.
Even with all that, it STILL says they were MADE to be taken and destroyed. It does not say they counted themselves unworthy (that is in the Bible in other places), it says they were "made".

God never said it was never his intention that any should perish. I know the verse you are referring to, but you are not reading the whole verse. So becareful to throw verses around.
 

Dcopymope

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2016
2,650
800
113
36
Motor City
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
FHII said:
Even with all that, it STILL says they were MADE to be taken and destroyed. It does not say they counted themselves unworthy (that is in the Bible in other places), it says they were "made".

God never said it was never his intention that any should perish. I know the verse you are referring to, but you are not reading the whole verse. So becareful to throw verses around.
So now we're not even talking about the whole sentence, we're just gonna focus on one word "MADE"? And one word out of an entire chapter is the whole of your argument? This is why the Christian community is an absolute joke. Yeah, the word "made" is throughout the bible. And? So what your point? Why not just pick apart the entire Bible with a fine tooth pick for the word "made" to argue for Calvinism, because this is basically the garbage we are talking about. One of a hundred heretical denominations out their with their own private interpretation of scripture. When it says in plain English that it was never Gods intent that any should perish but that ALL shall come to repentance, he means exactly that, ALL, not some he chose in the womb, or before the foundations of the world.
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Dcopymope said:
When it says in plain English that it was never Gods intent that any should perish but that ALL shall come to repentance, he means exactly that, ALL, not some he chose in the womb, or before the foundations of the world.
No, didn't. I could show you that, but if you are so upset that i pointed out the word "made" was in that verse, you won't like the truth on the verse you are referring to.

Don't bother. I'm not going to debate someone with your disposition.
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
FHII,

Sorry for the slow reply. Been a busy weekend.

Thank you for the explanation. What I find interesting is that you speak of God's intervention and sometimes removal of free will, yet you still say we have free will. I'm sure you can see the problem with that. If He intervenes, interferes (and I think he does so more than people know) and at times outright removes free will, then I would say it's not really free will.
I dont see a problem with that. Pharaoh had free will. When he hardened his heart, God responded by hardening him further. That is part of God's judgment for his own glory. Yet Pharaoh initiated it by his own rebellion. In the same way Israel rejected the prophets and their message and, as a result, God sent Isaiah to speak to them so that "seeing they would not see" lest they turn and be healed. If anything, it just shows that God's grace should be embraced immediately when it is given. To ignore and reject God's grace is a very dangerous thing.

Before you had said God does not predestinate us to believe, yet he does as you said have "instruments for his purpose". It is true: not all of them are believers. But it seems that the ones he needed to be believers were. Did God pick them to be instruments based on belief? not always, as I will enter Jeremiah's name into the mix.
Yes, God foresees those who will endure in the faith and he has chosen some of those people for his own purposes. I kinda see it like a game of chess. God is looking 100 moves ahead and knows what move we are going to make and he orchestrates our free-will moves to accomplish his ultimate check-mate. Even when God chooses an instrument for a specific calling, he is working in tandem with their own free-will and is not removing their will...which is made clear by the stories you mentioned such as Balaam and Jonah. There is even a story in the OT about a prophet who is killed by a lion because he didnt obey God's command. I think Jesus chose the Apostles because God foresaw their faith and character that would accomplish his plans for the church. Yet I think the notion that God MADE these men obey him apart from their own choice really throws the entire message of faith and repentance into question. Why would God call people to repent when it was God who fashioned them to rebel in the first place?
You don't say much about predestination of individuals, but rather of punishments and rewards. Yet the term appears 4 times in the Bible (twice each in Romans 8 and Ephesians 4) and each of those times it is speaking about individuals or small groups of individuals.
If you want to quote the verses, we can look at them in detail one at a time. If for no other reason than for us to explore how we each see these passages in relation to their context.
You well know that no one comes to the Father unless the Father draws him. You also know that many are called, but few are chosen. Both of these things (which are right from the mouth of Jesus) mean that not all are drawn to him and not all are called, much less chosen. Who is drawn, called and chosen is not our action, it's God's action.

Not sure I agree with this. In one of the instances where Jesus says, "Many are called but few are chosen" refers to the parable of the wedding banquet. The one who was thrown out of the banquet was thrown out because he came to the celebration without dressing for the occasion. Was the guest not chosen because of the arbitrary will of the host? No, the guest was thrown out because he didnt respond appropriately. You see, the parable teaches that God sends the invitation out to everyone (because the original recipients rejected the invitation), and of all who are invited, only those who respond appropriately are embraced. So, we see here that the "choosing" is not arbitrary but based on the response of those who received the invitation (cf. Matt. 22:1-14). Again, I think it would be helpful if we look at these verses in question individually.

Not of works, mind you... But we are responsible for faith.
I agree with this.

We can see what is needed and do what is needed, but Jesus said we have to endure to the end to be saved. So yes, God does predestinate individuals, but only he knows who they are by name. Therefore, we all better act as if God doesn't predestinate anyone.
To predestine means to destine/determine something beforehand. What is the point of foreknowledge if God has already predetermined the saved and the lost? Foreknowledge means nothing if God has predetermined every individuals ultimate state. The idea that we are just waiting to find out what God already determined so we should to our best to make sure we are part of what God already determined to happen seems a bit backward. God forsees our actions and predetermines our reward and glory as his children. To suggest God predetermines our faith is basically arguing that God has preordained the eternal destruction of most of the world by virtue of his own capricious will. I just think this concept flies in the face of everything the NT teaches about faith, grace, and God's love for the world. It basically validates the highly unbiblical concept of limited atonement. I find no basis for that in Scripture, whatsoever.
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wormwood,

I thank you for your response. A rebuttal is coming soon.
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
[SIZE=medium]Wormwood,[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]You had previously acknowledged that God intervenes in our lives and sometimes outright suspends free will. I questioned whether it was really free will if God does this. I am not satisfied with your answer which was that you saw no problem with it and pointed to the case of Pharaoh. I want to go over the case of Pharaoh more closely, but I want to further question you on free will first. Perhaps I am looking at this in terms of “absolutism” (if that is a word), it seems to me that the very instant God intervenes – much less suspends free will – it is no longer truly free will. Even if there were only one single instant of God so much as coaxing one person in the Bible, the concept of free will is dead. It does not mean choices aren’t there sometimes (most of the time, even), and it does not mean people don’t have decisions to make. But it is not free will. Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Mary all gave excuses on why they shouldn’t be given the job. God really didn’t pay attention to them. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Three of my favorite names to bring up on this are Balaam, Jonah and Paul. I asked if they had free will and another poster said that Balaam could’ve given false prophecy [it wasn’t what was going on, but that’s what the poster said], Jonah could’ve kept running (I wanted to know where he could run to in a whale) and Paul could’ve been a blind beggar. Wormwood, do you see these as reasonable choices given by a God who also gives “free will”? Don Corleone said in the movie the Godfather that he was going to make him an offer he can’t refuse…. But God originated the concept![/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]I stand by my statement. If God intervenes or suspends free will, it’s not free will. And while I have no evidence, I believe God intervenes several times each day in our lives to either protect us or rebuke us (which is still protecting us).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Another poster and I discussed “sheep”. He believed sheep have free will. Up to a point, I agree. I agree that they can eat where ever they want in the pasture that the Shepherd chooses. They can sleep under a tree or by a brook. They can baa with Bob the sheep or George the sheep. They can even run away. BUT the shepherd’s going to bring him back. Jesus the shepherd doesn’t lose his sheep! [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Now let’s look at the case of Pharaoh. The relevant text is Exodus, chapters [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]4 through 14. You had stated that Pharaoh had free will and he hardened his heart and God reacted to that. In short, you stated that Pharaoh initiated his own rebellion. Let’s look at the timeline:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Exo 4:21 The Lord said he will harden Pharaoh’s heart.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Exo 5 Pharaoh increases the work demand on the Hebrews by taking away their straw to make bricks.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Exo 6 God meets with Moses, and encourages him[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Exo 7:3 God said he will harden Pharaoh’s heart.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Exo 7:10 Aaron cast down his rod; Magicians cast down their rods…. Snakes and all.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Exo 7:13 God hardens Pharaoh’s heart.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Exo 7:20 River turned to blood [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Exo 8:6 Aaron brings a plague of frogs[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Exo 8:7 The magicians also bring a plague of frogs (I only mention this because I find it humorous…)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Exo 8:8 Pharaoh asks Moses to get rid of the frogs and he’ll let the Hebrews go.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Exo 8:15 Pharaoh hardened his own heart. FINALLY Pharaoh hardened his own heart.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]I’m going to end the timeline at that and say 2 more times after that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, but 6 times after that God said He hardened Pharaoh’s heart. The score in the “hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart” is God: 8, Pharaoh 3. And God was the first and second to harden his heart and also the last. Yet you say Pharaoh had free will and initiated his own rebellion. Sure, three times in the middle he did. But God initiated it. I am failing to see your reasoning when the ratio is 8:3 in favor of God hardening his heart, and He was the first to do it (not Pharaoh himself).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium](Ref: Exodus 8:32, 9:12, 9:34, 10:1, 10:27, 11:10, 14:4, 14:8, 14:17)[/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]So that brings us to Romans 9:17:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]It says God raised Pharaoh, not that he simply used Pharaoh’s disposition. Pharaoh’s purpose for existing was so God would show his power. This is beyond mere foreknowledge. This is raising him up for that purpose! In short, nothing in this account leads me to believe that Pharaoh initiated his own rebellion. It indicates me that God hardened his heart to begin with and if anything, Pharaoh further acted on what God initiated. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Moving on, you wanted me to list the verses on “predestination”. Wormwood, I’ve been reading your posts for a few years! I know what your thoughts on this are, or at least, what your thoughts have been. But sure, I’m game. As for my thoughts on the verses, I’ve given them already in this thread but I will, of course, rehash them. Here are the verses:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. [/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]My take: Romans 8:29 for me is the keynote scripture. I remember you saying that God does not predestinate anyone to believe. That is technically true. This verse says he did predestinate some to be conformed to the image of his son. It does not say to believe, nor does it say they are predestinated to go to heaven or be saved. BUT when you are conformed to the image of his son (and it is speaking spiritually… The whole chapter deals with the spiritual man) that will be the inevitable outcome. We are going to get to Ephesians next, but they are going to come back to the same thing 8:29 is saying. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]It also says the Jesus will be the firstborn of many brethren. “Many brethren” speaks of individuals, not a group of people (for example, the Gentiles). “Many brethren” means many individuals. The Body of Christ is one body of many members. The Church and The Bride of Christ are many members acting in one accord. This verse does not say it’s a group of members. In context, it says many individuals.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Personally, I was delighted when I came to this knowledge. God indeed does not predestinate us to the finished product (Heaven, salvation, etc..) He predestinates us to a process: to be conformed! It excites me because I have a concrete answer to the scatterbrains who say things like, “Well, if we are predestined, that means we can do what ever we want and still go to heaven!” No, it doesn’t! The verse says we are predestinated to undergo a process, which will eventually lead us to heaven.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Another note on 8:29 is that people look at it as a step by step process; which it is not. It does not say, “for whom he did foreknow, he then did predestinate…” It says, “… he also did…” Verse 30 says they were also called, justified and glorified. I am not against it being a step by step process (as opposed to an “all at the same time” process). But it never says that it is. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]One more thing before I move on…. This isn’t talking about a group of people, like… Let’s say… The gentiles. Paul details the predestination of the gentiles in his writings, but not in this chapter. Very indirectly and remotely, he does in verse 15. But Paul’s not a gentile. Yet he is speaking to (presumed) gentiles, and he uses the term “us”. That means “Paul and his audience”. He is talking to and about “Christians”: whether they be Jews or Gentiles. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]The Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians were written to and delivered to PEOPLE. We know some of their names. Yes, Epistles were circular in nature (meaning they were meant to be read in one Church, then delivered to another and read, and then to another….). But they impacted individuals, and were meant to. So I don’t subscribe to the viewpoint that at any time, God predestined the Gentiles and NOT individuals. He did predestine the Gentile graphing. But he also predestinated individuals. Names not given… Ever! It’s for God to know. This is another reason why I reject the notion that “we can do whatever we want!” We are told some are predestined… We are given a formula and a game plan. If we do it, then we know we are predestined. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Heck Wormwood…. Calvin didn’t even believe that we can do anything we want. But most people who speak out against Calvinism or OSAS have never read his works. Case in point: Calvin as far as my research leads me is the one who coined the phrase “Grace isn’t a license to sin!” The people that call OSAS “Calvinism” irk me as much as those who believe Satan is Lucifer! (sorry for the rant).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Next verse:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Verse 5 is the one that says predestinated but verse 4 gives us the essence of what it means. We are predestinated to be his children (coincides with Romans 8:16, 17 and 29). It never says according to our will, but according to the good pleasure of HIS will. Our [free] will has nothing to do with it. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]We were chosen before Genesis 1:1 to be holy and without blame before HIM in love. Who is the only human who was holy and without blame? Jesus. So being conformed to the image of [Jesus] makes us holy and without blame. Not of works, mind you.. But by grace through faith in Jesus. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I will repeat… Again Paul says “us”. Paul was not a gentile and the Church at Ephesus was pretty small at this writing. In chapter 2 he does explain the relationship of the gentiles, but he is not talking to Gentiles, per se. He is talking to Christians.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I will admit this verse does confuse me. The next verse says, “that we should be the praise of his glory who first trusted in Christ”. The next verse after that says, “In whom ye also trusted, after ye heard the word of truth…”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]What is clear to me is that verse 12 isn’t talking about the Jews: they rejected Christ! Not all of them, but God accounted them as a people rejecting him. Thus, verse 13 isn’t talking about the gentiles. Not all of them accepted Jesus. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The best I can come up with is that Paul was speaking of the Apostles and their initial followers (like Luke and Barnabas and even James the half brother of Jesus) in verse 12. They were the first group to trust in Christ. Verse 13 is speaking of the churches they set up. In Paul’s calling, many (not all) were Gentiles. Verse 13 is speaking of Christians, not Gentiles. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Jesus said he knew his sheep by name. He said that even the very hairs on your head are numbered. So I have a hard time believing that God was predestinating a type or a group of people rather than individual people. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]These are not the only verses that point to predestination. I estimate I can bring up about 50 more verses that are relevant to the topic and support predestination. Can you produce the same for free will?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]“Freewill” does occur in the Bible…. Usually about giving a freewill offering. About 11 times. Not that all offerings are free will. Some aren’t. Some offerings were required. But when folks claim to have scripture that supports free will, it’s almost always verses that contain the starter, “Whosoever will…” This isn’t an invitation as much as it is identification. It’s there to tell us who the predestinated are. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Wormwood, I am using Microsoft word, and am on page four. I have not addressed all that you have said, but I feel that I’ve said enough. Long posts are boring and tend to lose strength. If there is something I didn’t address that you want me to, bring it up again. [/SIZE]
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You had previously acknowledged that God intervenes in our lives and sometimes outright suspends free will. I questioned whether it was really free will if God does this. I am not satisfied with your answer which was that you saw no problem with it and pointed to the case of Pharaoh. I want to go over the case of Pharaoh more closely, but I want to further question you on free will first. Perhaps I am looking at this in terms of “absolutism” (if that is a word), it seems to me that the very instant God intervenes – much less suspends free will – it is no longer truly free will. Even if there were only one single instant of God so much as coaxing one person in the Bible, the concept of free will is dead. It does not mean choices aren’t there sometimes (most of the time, even), and it does not mean people don’t have decisions to make. But it is not free will. Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Mary all gave excuses on why they shouldn’t be given the job. God really didn’t pay attention to them.
FHII,

I think the problem you are having is with your definition of "free will." It seems you want to define freedom in an absolute sense, which is never what I, or any other proponent of free will would contend for. Genuine freedom is not the capacity to choose anything. If that were the case, then only true freedom would exist for the omnipotent. I mean, it's like saying, "I really dont have freedom of choice because I want to fly, but God didnt create me with wings." This is an absurd defintion. Of course, we are all limited by our abilities, intellects, physical traits, cultures, opportunities, etc. Yet a poor person is just as "free" as a rich person, even if they do not have the same opportunities.

Freedom as I define it is simply the capacity to choose between opposites. It doesnt mean I must have the capacity to chose to do ANYTHING, but simply to make a choice in the situation I find myself. I reject the idea that God's persuasion eliminates a person's freedom to choose. If I tell my child to clean their room and encourage them by offering them a candy bar if they do a good job, have I removed their freedom to choose? Have I eliminated their capacity to choose to obey or disobey? Of course not! I have simply encouraged them with a reward or punishment to make a good choice. The same is true with God. God rewards and punishes our behaviors and encourages us in many ways (such as the prompting of the Spirit, promises of future reward, warnings of punishment, the pleading of prophets, and even the incredible display of love in Jesus that shows us he is a good Shepherd who loves his sheep). Yet in all of this, God still leaves our capacity to choose in tact. His encouragements, warnings and Spirit does not handcuff our volition to do his bidding apart from our own choices.

Three of my favorite names to bring up on this are Balaam, Jonah and Paul. I asked if they had free will and another poster said that Balaam could’ve given false prophecy [it wasn’t what was going on, but that’s what the poster said], Jonah could’ve kept running (I wanted to know where he could run to in a whale) and Paul could’ve been a blind beggar. Wormwood, do you see these as reasonable choices given by a God who also gives “free will”? Don Corleone said in the movie the Godfather that he was going to make him an offer he can’t refuse…. But God originated the concept!
I think all these examples prove the opposite of what you are suggesting. First, lets look at Balaam. If you are right, then God actually determined Balaam to reject God's command and curse God's people for financial reward. The donkey he rode was wiser than he was. If you are right, then God's will was actually that Jonah disobeyed before he eventually obeyted. I mean, if Jonah didnt have freedom to choose then even his choice to run from God was actually God's choice for him. I think Jonah could have just died in that whale/fish. Finally, I think Paul makes it clear that he could have disobeyed God. He said, "Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel!" Surely, though he was called by God, Paul had the capacity to choose.

The real issue here is not the free will of these men, but the graciousness of God that showed degrees of longsuffering with these men when they were disobedient (even though Balaam ultimately fell). God gave Jonah a second and third chance. God gave Balaam a chance to reconsider through the voice of the mule. God gave Paul grace to see the truth and called him to be a vessel. Of the three of these men, Balaam ultimately still rejected God's grace and did what was evil. Paul and Jonah accepted God's correction. If anything, these stories teach me that God is gracious, even to those who receive incredible revelation and is patient in working with us. Did God compel these men? Yes, I believe so. Did he do it in such a way as to eliminate their will in the process? Absolutely not!


If God intervenes or suspends free will, it’s not free will. And while I have no evidence, I believe God intervenes several times each day in our lives to either protect us or rebuke us (which is still protecting us).
Again, I think this is a very poor way of understanding freedom. My interventions in the lives of my kids does not remove their freedom. Rather, my interventions are for the purpose of guiding them and helping them to make wise choices. The Bible itself is part of God's intervention in the world. It does not remove our choices. Rather, it guides us in wise and faithful decision-making.

They can baa with Bob the sheep or George the sheep. They can even run away. BUT the shepherd’s going to bring him back. Jesus the shepherd doesn’t lose his sheep!
I think this is a poor analogy. Jesus refers to "his sheep" as the ones who "heed his voice." Thus, the sheep are the ones who follow the shepherd. Jesus cares for those who hear him and follow him. To suggest that "his sheep" is an term related to a predetermined group apart from their own choices or obedience is NOT how Jesus uses that phrase.

It says God raised Pharaoh, not that he simply used Pharaoh’s disposition. Pharaoh’s purpose for existing was so God would show his power. This is beyond mere foreknowledge. This is raising him up for that purpose!
Yes, I believe God put that individual in power in order to display his own power. God knew that man's heart and stubborness and put him in a place of world power so that God could use his arrogance and stubbornness to bring glory to God. For example, (and I am only being hypothetical here) imagine God wanted to judge America. Maybe he chooses a person like Trump, Clinton or some other person and sees into their heart that they are greedy, proud, arrogant and idolatrous. He guides that person into the presidency to bring the nation to ruin as an act of judgment against that person and the nation. Yes, God raised the person up and put them in the position to display his power. Yet that does NOT MEAN that God made the person arrogant, proud and idolatrous! How can God judge the world for being idolatrous if he is the one causing them to be that way!? There is a real dangerous line that is crossed here when we take God from using someone's rebellion as a means to display his power and God causing rebellion. The second makes God the author of a person's sin and inner wickedness. May it never be!

Thanks for listing the Scripture. I am sure you have heard some of my thoughts on Romans. So, I will quote someone else I admire on this topic and on these verses that I think says things more clearly than I. I will try to deal with the Ephesians passages in a day or two...I am running short on time at the moment....

Concerning God's calling (Rom. 8:27)
The persons to whom this promise applies are also described as those “who have been called according to his purpose.” On the concept of calling, see 1:6. Calvinist commentators see this as a reference not to the gospel call that goes out to all, but to an inward, selective, irresistible enabling that inevitably produces saving faith in its chosen recipients. As such it is part of what is called “irresistible grace.” Scripture is clear, however, that sinners are called not by a secret, inward operation of the Spirit but by the gospel itself (2 Thess 2:14), and that faith comes by hearing the word of this gospel (10:17). Whether or not this outward call is accompanied by an inward operation of the Spirit, both on the outward and inward levels the call is universal (John 12:32) and resistible (Matt 23:37). See Godet, 323–324.

Jack Cottrell, Romans, vol. 1, The College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin, MO: College Press Pub. Co., 1996), Ro 8:28.

On Predestination

The word for “predestined” combines ὁρίζω (horizō), “to determine” (see 1:4), and πρό (pro), “before,” yielding προορίζω (proorizō). This means “to determine beforehand, to predetermine, to foreordain.” The translation “to predestine” suggests the nuance “to predetermine the destiny of.” When used of persons with reference to salvation it is closely related to the concept of election (v. 33). The prefix pro indicates that the determination in view took place before the world was created (see Eph 1:4; Rev 17:8).

In this verse the predetermination of an individual’s destiny is the point. God predetermined that those whom he foreknew would one day “be conformed to the likeness of his Son.” This is often taken as referring to our spiritual re-creation in the moral image of God as perfectly embodied in Jesus Christ. As such it would include our present and continuing sanctification. But this is not the point. In this context the emphasis is on our final inheritance, the eschatological glory of the redeemed body (vv. 11, 23). “The likeness of his Son” refers to the fact that our resurrection bodies will be like that of Christ. It is the same thought and language as Phil 3:21, which says (literally) that our body “will be conformed to the body of his glory.” See also 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 3:18.

This interpretation is confirmed by the reference to Christ as “the firstborn among many brethren.” In Col 1:15 “firstborn” signifies the unique preeminence of Christ, but the point here is that he is “the firstborn from among the dead” (Col 1:18; see Rev 1:5), i.e., the first to be raised from the dead in a glorified body. (See Acts 13:34; 26:23; Rom 6:9; 1 Cor 15:20.) As such he is the first “among many brethren,” i.e., among many others who will also be raised in glorified bodies to constitute God’s eternal family. This will be, as Dunn says, “a new race of eschatological people in whom God’s design from the beginning of creation is at last fulfilled” (I:484).

This is what is predestined: our final salvation, our conformity to Christ’s resurrection body, our inheritance of glory. In other words, even before the world was created, God had already predestined that some individuals would go to heaven, and that the rest would go to hell. It is important to see that such predestination applies to specific individuals and not just to an impersonal plan or group. (See GRu, 338–343.) Thus far we can agree with Calvinism.

But now comes the crucial question: on what basis did God so predestine us? Here is where non-Calvinists part company with Calvinists and other Augustinians. For the latter, God’s predestination of certain individuals to salvation is an unconditional election. Prior to creation, they say, in one all-encompassing, efficacious decree, God laid out in detail everything that would take place within the created universe. He decided that he would create X number of human beings, and he unilaterally and unconditionally determined that some of these would ultimately be part of his heavenly family, and that the rest would not.
The key word here is unconditional. That is, for Calvinists, when God was predetermining which individuals would go to heaven, his decision was not contingent upon whether or not these individuals would meet certain conditions, such as faith and repentance. God never responds to human contingencies; this would be contrary to his sovereignty (see GRu, 217–228). This does not mean that he will save anyone apart from faith and repentance. It means rather that when God predestined some to salvation, he not only determined their heavenly destiny but also determined that he would sovereignly bestow upon them the faith and repentance that are prerequisites for heaven. He predestined not only the end but also the means.

This is where Calvinism goes wrong. It is biblical to say that God predestines certain individuals to salvation’s end result, heaven; but it is contrary to Scripture to say that these individuals will meet the conditions for going to heaven only because God has predestined them to do so. God predestines the end, but not the means. He predestines all believers to heaven, but he does not predestine anyone to become a believer. Salvation is conditional (see 1:16), and individuals must meet these conditions by their own free-will choice. Therefore predestination itself is conditional; God predestined to heaven those whom he foreknew would meet the required conditions. (See GRu, 343–345.)

Here we come to the crucial point in this verse, i.e., the relation between foreknowledge and predestination. “Those God foreknew he also predestined.” We should note that v. 29 says only that God foreknew certain persons; it does not say specifically what he foreknew about them. In view of the Bible’s teaching about salvation in general, many assume that God foreknew “that they would comply with the conditions of justification” (Lard, 282). As Godet puts it (325), they are “foreknown as sure to fulfil the condition of salvation, viz. faith; so: foreknown as his by faith.”

This answer is not at all unreasonable, but I suggest that v. 28 has already revealed the object of God’s foreknowledge. We must not overlook the connection between these two verses, as if v. 29 exists apart from any context. Verse 29 begins (after the conjunction) with the relative pronoun “whom” (translated “those” in the NIV). Ordinarily we would expect an antecedent for this pronoun, and here we find it in v. 28, namely, “those who love God.” God foreknew those who would love him. He foreknew that at some point in their lives they would come to love him and would continue to love him unto the end. See the parallel in 1 Cor 8:3, “But if anyone loves God, he is known by him” (NASB). This is exactly the same idea as Rom 8:29a, the former referring to knowledge and the latter to foreknowledge.
We should also note that v. 29 begins with the causative conjunction ὅτι (hoti), “for, because.” This most likely goes with “we know” in v. 28. Thus the thought is quite simple: We know that God works all things for the good of those who love him and are called into his eternal family according to his purpose. How do we know this? Because, having foreknown from eternity that they would love him, he has already predestined them to this state of eternal glory! Thus we can be sure that the temporary trials of this life are not able to nullify what the Almighty God himself has already predestined will occur! Rather, he uses them in ways that prepare us to enjoy eternity even more.


Jack Cottrell, Romans, vol. 1, The College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin, MO: College Press Pub. Co., 1996), Ro 8:29.
Sorry for the long quote, but the passage requires significant attention. Sorry I have to run! Thanks for the conversation, will reply more soon.
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wormwood,

I don't feel like I am having a problem with my definition of free will. I definitely do think of this definition in absolute terms because I feel it is the right way to look at it. What you are doing is introducing "gray" area into the term free. Well, how gray can it get before it turns black? Also i see you example as wanting to fly as a poor one. We are not discussing defying the laws of nature and anatomy; we are discussing whether or not God interjects himself on our wilk, which clearly he has done in the past with others and perhaps with you and me as well.

Regardless, its not something I see as pertinent to debate. If thats want you want to call free will, fine for now. Its not as if its a Biblical term in this light anyway. In retrospect, what you are calling "free will" isn't too different from what I suppose I'd simply say is the way things are.

I do have to keep in mind your definition.... I have been partially looking at the definition from a overall perspective of the debates and arguements from many different people. I will try to be careful on that.

In respect to your comments on Balaam, Jonah and Paul: I will not be so bold as to say it was Gods will that Balaam and Jonah tried (in vain, I will add) to do other than God's will. But I will say it is indeed possible. Certainly Jesus would use Jonah's 3 days/3 nights in the whale to fortell his resurrection. Furthermore, I'd like to remind you of the words Joseph the son of Jacob said to his brothers that they (his brothers) meant it for harm but God meant it for good.

wormwood, I am surprised you are not seeing the severity of what was going onwith all three of these individuals. Balaam was about to die. Immediately, and God was mercyful in sending his donkey. Jonah was living in what he called hell for 3 days and three nights. Paul had it worse... He was not only blinded, but knocked downed and held captive by Jesus himself and had to give an answer for what he did (Jesus was mercyful).

Had any of these 3 free will.... They would've gone to hell, as I believe Balaam did but on a separate problem. But the was an immediate and terrifying circumstance that I don't believe either of us can comprehend. If you have been in similar circumstances i apologize and you can relate (I'm not trying to be sarcastic....).

In short, I don't see much freedom to choose here. But, I've said my fill. I will let you have the last word on that issue, if you desire to offer a rebuttal.


God is gracious, I will agree. That is a goid point. Ok. Allow me one parting shot. God compelled them? Did you agree to that point? What does compel mean?

I absolutely disagree with your analysis of what i commented about Jesus and his sheep, which is from John 10. I don't see the word "heed" in that chapter but I do see "hear and follow" (kjv). For you to prove it wasn't in context, you will have to prove it, not just say its so.

Briefly on pharaoh... I've said my fill. I stand by what i said and acknowledge your rebuttal. I hope you understand any further reply from me would just be rehashing what Ive already said.

As for the commentary on Romans.... I don't mind the long quotes if that is what you believe. I tread carefully when commenting on what ministers/theologians have to say because i respect to office.

The problem is he seems to be responding to Calvinists. I am not one (in fact i agree with some things he says). I've also read Calvin's work and my conclusion is he wasn't a calvinist either. Aside from that, I don't agree with all John Calvin said either.

It is a bit unfair, but Cottrell doesn't give biblical reference for all his beliefs and statements, at least not in your quoted portion.

Its a pretty elaborate (and thus, complex) commmentary. One of the main points I draw from it is that God is predestinating our reward, not the journey to obtain it. I think he said it thusly: that God predestinates the ends, not the means. I humbly to you and Cottrell disagree. I go back to Paul.... God certainly did impact the means in his case.

I look forward to hearing what you have to say about Eph ch 1. I pkan to comment on that if need be and then offer my conclusion. Lord willing.

Interesting conversation. Thanks dor your time.
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
FHII said:
Wormwood,

I don't feel like I am having a problem with my definition of free will. I definitely do think of this definition in absolute terms because I feel it is the right way to look at it. What you are doing is introducing "gray" area into the term free. Well, how gray can it get before it turns black? Also i see you example as wanting to fly as a poor one. We are not discussing defying the laws of nature and anatomy; we are discussing whether or not God interjects himself on our wilk, which clearly he has done in the past with others and perhaps with you and me as well.

Regardless, its not something I see as pertinent to debate. If thats want you want to call free will, fine for now. Its not as if its a Biblical term in this light anyway. In retrospect, what you are calling "free will" isn't too different from what I suppose I'd simply say is the way things are.

I do have to keep in mind your definition.... I have been partially looking at the definition from a overall perspective of the debates and arguements from many different people. I will try to be careful on that.

In respect to your comments on Balaam, Jonah and Paul: I will not be so bold as to say it was Gods will that Balaam and Jonah tried (in vain, I will add) to do other than God's will. But I will say it is indeed possible. Certainly Jesus would use Jonah's 3 days/3 nights in the whale to fortell his resurrection. Furthermore, I'd like to remind you of the words Joseph the son of Jacob said to his brothers that they (his brothers) meant it for harm but God meant it for good.

wormwood, I am surprised you are not seeing the severity of what was going onwith all three of these individuals. Balaam was about to die. Immediately, and God was mercyful in sending his donkey. Jonah was living in what he called hell for 3 days and three nights. Paul had it worse... He was not only blinded, but knocked downed and held captive by Jesus himself and had to give an answer for what he did (Jesus was mercyful).

Had any of these 3 free will.... They would've gone to hell, as I believe Balaam did but on a separate problem. But the was an immediate and terrifying circumstance that I don't believe either of us can comprehend. If you have been in similar circumstances i apologize and you can relate (I'm not trying to be sarcastic....).

In short, I don't see much freedom to choose here. But, I've said my fill. I will let you have the last word on that issue, if you desire to offer a rebuttal.


God is gracious, I will agree. That is a goid point. Ok. Allow me one parting shot. God compelled them? Did you agree to that point? What does compel mean?

I absolutely disagree with your analysis of what i commented about Jesus and his sheep, which is from John 10. I don't see the word "heed" in that chapter but I do see "hear and follow" (kjv). For you to prove it wasn't in context, you will have to prove it, not just say its so.

Briefly on pharaoh... I've said my fill. I stand by what i said and acknowledge your rebuttal. I hope you understand any further reply from me would just be rehashing what Ive already said.

As for the commentary on Romans.... I don't mind the long quotes if that is what you believe. I tread carefully when commenting on what ministers/theologians have to say because i respect to office.

The problem is he seems to be responding to Calvinists. I am not one (in fact i agree with some things he says). I've also read Calvin's work and my conclusion is he wasn't a calvinist either. Aside from that, I don't agree with all John Calvin said either.

It is a bit unfair, but Cottrell doesn't give biblical reference for all his beliefs and statements, at least not in your quoted portion.

Its a pretty elaborate (and thus, complex) commmentary. One of the main points I draw from it is that God is predestinating our reward, not the journey to obtain it. I think he said it thusly: that God predestinates the ends, not the means. I humbly to you and Cottrell disagree. I go back to Paul.... God certainly did impact the means in his case.

I look forward to hearing what you have to say about Eph ch 1. I pkan to comment on that if need be and then offer my conclusion. Lord willing.

Interesting conversation. Thanks dor your time.
Thanks for your response.

I wont made a lot of additional comments since you seem willing to let the stuff already discussed pass. I am content with that as well. I would just be curious about your definition of freedom as the will is concerned. What constitutes freedom? Isnt our being created by God in a certain way part of his determination of what we can or cannot choose? If he created us with legs and not wings, is that not him "imposing" himself on our capacity to choose? I dont understand how God's visitation to Paul or speaking through the donkey is God removing free will. I just see it as grace. God didnt make them choose anything, but he did give a special amount of grace. Yet it is important to note that others saw powerful things (such as the miracles of Jesus) or the glory of God (the Israelites in the desert) and many of them still rebelled and refused to obey. God's miraculous intervention has never removed a person's freedom to choose to obey or disobey (at least not from what I read in the Scriptures).

As for Cottrell's quote, how can you say he doesnt use Scripture? Eph 1:4; Rev 17:8; Col 1:18; Rev 1:5;Acts 13:34; 26:23; Rom 6:9; 1 Cor 15:20. These are just some of the Scriptures he references in the quote above. One of the things I appreciate about Cottrell the most is his heavy emphasis on context and other Biblical texts. I would also disagree with your comment about Calvin. He certainly was "Calvinist" in the sense of how he understood double predestination and the bondage of the will. He just wouldnt have probably used the convenient little terms we have attached to him (such as TULIP).

[SIZE=11pt]Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,[/SIZE]
Allow me to quote the entire sectoin of Ephesians here and make a few brief comments...

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.” (Ephesians 1:3–14, ESV)

First, note that we have been chosen "in him" before the foundation of the world. God's plan was that those who were "in Christ" would be holy and blameless. So, this is not teaching that Joe, Bob and Steve would be holy and blameless, whereas Jim and Rick would be corrupt. That is not what this is teaching. It is saying that those who would be "in Christ" would be holy and blameless. We have been chosen "in Christ" and have become part of God's "chosen" people by virtue of our faith which places us "in Christ." As a result of our being "in Christ" and considered among God's chosen people, we have been predetermined to be adopted as sons, to bring him praise, to be redeemed, to be forgiven, receive an inheritance and so forth. Thus, what Paul is saying is that what God has determined beforehand is that we receive these blessings and riches through Christ. In my view, this is not teaching God selecting individuals, but God selecting the blessings and rewards that would come to those who are "in Christ" and those who put hope in him. As Paul says, "so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance..." So, it seems to me that Paul is saying that it is our hearing and belief in him that seals us as God's chosen and promises us to partake in these gifts God has predetermined to give through Christ. The gifts and rewards are what were predetermined, not the individuals. Those rewards are received by faith...which is our response. If anything, these passages seem to affirm our role in responding to the Gospel as crucial for the reception of the rewards God has determined beforehand to give in Christ.

Sorry, gotta run! Thanks for the conversation.
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wormwood,

A few quick shots to address a few issues. I'll comment more later.

1. I appreciate a conversation that allows a say and rebuttal from each party involved. Anything more becomes a fight of words. We are having a great debate and I thank you for such!
2. I did not say Cottrill didn't use scripture. I stated he didn't for all his points. He certainly does use scripture. Some of the philosophical points he makes, he doesn't. Not wrong to do this... You could correctly say the same about me. Case in point my definition and philosophy of freedom (which I will expound on later).

Let me stress I don't fault him by giving a critical analysis. Especially since I haven't read all his work.


3. Have you actually read John CalvinCalvin's work? I have, though its been a few years. 90% of his teaching on oredestination comes from 3 chapters he wrote. The doctrines of OSAS and tulup (or more importantly, the present day perceived doctrine) is a far cry from his teachings.

I will respond to the rest sometime soon.
 

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
For IF, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.”

Free will allows you to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to you and return to your own vomit and wallow in mire. If you have free will you are not predestined.
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
tom55 said:
For IF, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.”

Free will allows you to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to you and return to your own vomit and wallow in mire. If you have free will you are not predestined.
Ok. Then Paul had it all wrong... ton55, i don't read verses. I read chapters. But then, i also dont read chapters, I read epistles. Heck, i don't even read them.... I read the Word.


I'm no longer interested in this thread. There is nothing fruitful left in it.

The thread is dead.
 

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
FHII said:
Ok. Then Paul had it all wrong... ton55, i don't read verses. I read chapters. But then, i also dont read chapters, I read epistles. Heck, i don't even read them.... I read the Word.
I'm no longer interested in this thread. There is nothing fruitful left in it.

The thread is dead.
FHII.....I think an anti-Christian hacked you! They wrote that "Paul had it all wrong". Lol :D

You might want to change your password so this won't happen again.
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
tom55 said:
FHII.....I think an anti-Christian hacked you! They wrote that "Paul had it all wrong". Lol :D

You might want to change your password so this won't happen again.
Well. If an anti-christian hacked me, he had a helluva lot more class than you.

There are a lot of folks on this board who call themselves Christian. Right now... I don't want to be associated with you.
 

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
FHII said:
Well. If an anti-christian hacked me, he had a helluva lot more class than you.

There are a lot of folks on this board who call themselves Christian. Right now... I don't want to be associated with you.
Thank you. I love you too!

Are you angry because scripture destroys your theory?

PS....I am not mad at you for your hateful words!