Free Will

[bbyrd009]

Here's a question: when you pray for someone who does not know he Lord, how do you pray? Do you pray;
"Lord, I know there is nothing you can do, its all on them. I would ask you to change their hearts, but no.... you cant do that either. I would ask you to make them see the truth, but....no.... it has to be up to them. I wish there were something you could do, but salvation is totally up to them. Darn."

insert Scriptural argument that God and Christ have done all They ever need do here, but wadr i have a different definition of "prayer" anyway now, so this is a different subject.

OF COURSE NOT! Why? Because in our heart-of-hearts, out true plea to our loving Father for the sake of a dearly loved one is this;

your dearly loved ones are supposed to be those who manifest Christ, see, but you obviously have some other standard here

"Lord please CHANGE their hearts, OPEN their eyes, MAKE them see the truth of your love and glory. Please lord, please!" Why do we pray like this?

you would not like my answer

Because prayer comes from the heart, and deep in our hearts Gods sovereignty is what we truly believe.

or because you are so deeply insecure of your position that you need to posit a "We" that you cannot demonstrate in order to justify being included, and every time you notch up another recruit you are vindicated in your own mind. And both can be true, of course. But neither speaks to God's Sovereignty anyway, at least that i can see. God does not rule the world, anyway.

 

[bbyrd009]

How about, instead of criticizing and critiquing us you actually answer some of OUR questions?

ok my apologies ok, i did not mean to imply that i do not do the same exact things, or i'm any better. It was just more convenient to use your posts as they came up to illustrate these points rather than have to construct scenarios from scratch.

as to your questions, by all means ask away, but i caution you that i generally find other questions to be better answers than most answers, so if you think that i am not answering or want a more direct answer please say so, and i will prolly give you the spiel about logical thinkers needing an A or notA answer again, but whatever. I'll try.

 

[bbyrd009]

Here you are claiming that we are wrong

? Wrong? I do not know from wrong or right there, understand, i just said that "we" do this, and it is hypocritical to then say that we do not imply that we can identify the predestined. "We" are in, and moonies and whoever, the "cults," are quite obviously "out," by implication if nothing else.

 

[bbyrd009]

You are not open to any suggestions,

ha, sure i am, why do you say this--i suggest Muslims and even Hindus are your brothers, how's that for open lol.

 

[bbyrd009]

but are merely here to poke fun.

fwiw i am deadly serious up there, and not poking fun. If the shoe fits, wear it. Or change it. Or don't. They are all things that i struggle with myself. Inadvertently channeling satan, that is. Of course anyone who dares question my authoritay is still pretty much one of "them" lol. We can see that we are more or less arrayed in the same, battlefield formation ourselves now, right?

 

[Abiding Grace]

so then you apparently are not in Mjh29's "we" after all, see.

You are quite wrong. We agree that universal atonement is not taught in the scriptures. We instead believe in Limited Atonement.

amen, and i suggest that you do not know that everyone is not "saved," at some point, even if all are not right now, and do not see how the two statements that you have made here are conflicting.

Wrong again. The Bible does not teach universal atonement.

John 10:27New King James Version (NKJV)

27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

at least not that you can see anymore, i agree; nonetheless i apparently must still seek MY OWN salvation, and if "i" must "seek" then it follows that i must have free will otherwise there is no "I" to even seek. All i have to do now is cry "LordLord," see--which i would argue that even that takes free will, but whatever.

Produce from the Holy Bible any verse (in context) that says men have free will unto salvation.

We'll be waiting.

 

[Abiding Grace]

we'll pick this one up after you have replied to #215. If you hold no doctrines inviolable then it will quickly become apparent, but you have already violated this, and you are about to do it again, to whit;
see that you already have, when they are relegated to "them." They are no longer "we" or "us," but "cults" and by extension "whackos" or anyway "judged" no matter how you might slice it.

See, judging for yourself (with free will, btw) is fine, but you have judged others now. (Me too ok you are just the current example, i'm not saying i'm any different)

Oh horrors of horrors, I said something unacceptable! LOL. Moonies, Scientologists, Mormons, JW's are not Christians. They teach another gospel which Paul says must be anathematized. Now me I choose the words of Jesus and the Apostle Paul over David Miscavige Charles Taze Russell and Joseph Smith. That does not however mean that some are elect and will be saved. There is no free will involved. The Arminian insistence of free will be used in salvation, is simply not true, nor does the Bible teach. Without saying it explicitly, their attitude is poor God He can't do anything on His own. They do this, because they are convinced that they should get credit for their salvation. Deceitful.

I don't believe we have ever said that. Twisting my words is merely a tactic to avoid having to discuss issues that are present. God knows His sheep. We do not.

 

[Abiding Grace]

ha, sure i am, why do you say this--i suggest Muslims and even Hindus are your brothers, how's that for open lol.

We reject that. From the Apostle Paul

Galatians 1:8-9King James Version (KJV)

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

 

[Abiding Grace]

well as i said (postulating, not knowing here), it is not usually overt, but imo that usually is another symptom, along with the argument against free will. That usually comes along next, and i can even show you many examples.

I am not sure who this "we" is that you speak for, but i suggest that this is another symptom; including yourself or others in some undefined group--or worse, defined--when you cannot verify membership in this group for anyone, at least imo.

Who is "we?" Because, see, you start out by saying that you do not know, but then you say "We," which infers that you must know. How can their be a "We" that you (and Hitler, and me) have included ourselves in, if we do not know? See, "we" do not even think about this, this "we" that we assume to lend credence to our position, that does not exist.


Of course this is a rhetorical question, my "we" is different than your "we," but i hope you see the point. And when "predestination" is the answer for "what must i do to be saved?" or even "do i have free will" then the same thing is going on. Personal responsibility is being abdicated so that "we" do not have any role in manifesting the kingdom on earth, when you know for a fact that i can also make a case that God does nothing in our domain without human action, and i can even make a case that He cannot.

And i have other, even more overt examples, but essentially by "we" you mean Calvinists, or something similar, amounting to "we, who have been predestined."

Red bolding mine.

Once again you see what you want to see and completely ignore what we have said and backed up by scripture. No, you don't have to be a Calvinist to be saved. No free will necessary.

 

[bbyrd009]

You are quite wrong. We agree that universal atonement is not taught in the scriptures. We instead believe in Limited Atonement.

yes, but you had just disagreed on some other point, was why i made the comment--the point being that you likely disagree in some other area, and are not as "we" as you imagine. After all, who has not had the experience of joining some group, only to discover some aspect of it that cooled them to the idea of being married to them?

You must admit that there is a valid argument for Universal Atonement; are adherents to this now "them?" Lost? A poll taken among your "we" might surprise you, but surely quite a few, 50% or so, might consider belief in UA disqualifying for some reason or other, yes? Otherwise they would be accepted in your "we." see, and they are not.

If you are "we," there is by definition a "they" that has been judged, whether or not it is put that way. And since of course no one can prove either doctrine conclusively, and no one ever will be able to, this side of Glory, imo the fruit of these doctrines is revealed, unless you can witness some other fruit that i am not aware of?

 

[Mjh29]

fwiw i am deadly serious up there, and not poking fun. If the shoe fits, wear it. Or change it. Or don't. They are all things that i struggle with myself. Inadvertently channeling satan, that is. Of course anyone who dares question my authoritay is still pretty much one of "them" lol. We can see that we are more or less arrayed in the same, battlefield formation ourselves now, right?

You are quite wrong. We agree that universal atonement is not taught in the scriptures. We instead believe in Limited Atonement.



Wrong again. The Bible does not teach universal atonement.

John 10:27New King James Version (NKJV)

27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.




Produce from the Holy Bible any verse (in context) that says men have free will unto salvation.

We'll be waiting.

How about this; before we even continue, I need to ask you [bbyrd009] a question, and this is simple yes or no
Is the Bible the inspired, inerrant word of God?

 

[bbyrd009]

Oh horrors of horrors, I said something unacceptable!

lol i did not mean that at all. You are free to offend Moonies and JWs if you like, you are just being honest, and this descends from your faith; your beliefs, that they are "unacceptable" for whatever reason, because they believe something that you do not, but the point is to examine the wall that you have made between you and your neighbor, and to contemplate the spirit you must manifest to do this, that will also be hovering around in your neighborly interactions with them.

This keeps you away from Christ, and not the fact that you have judged their dogma unacceptable on a personal level, as is your right and even duty, under "seek your own salvation."

 

[bbyrd009]

We reject that. From the Apostle Paul

Galatians 1:8-9King James Version (KJV)

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

so what? that is a different subject--we were discussing my openness, not your hang ups. I already know that you have judged another man's servant based upon this passage, and have not reflected upon how your own pastor is accursed by it anyway, that is part and parcel with the other judgement that you admit to.

I am not even interested in pointing out that you cannot even define "Gospel" to universal agreement, likely even within your own walls, so to speak, neverminding that no Hindus or Muslims are invited to "preach" to you anyway. That verse is for Christians to apply to preachers, not for the blind to hold up as a yardstick to another man's servant.

No one required you to become a Hindu or a Muslim, in order to love them as neighbors, the dogma that agrees with Christ, and trust me they are both much better at "love your neighbor" than we are, generally speaking.

So, you reject what strikes you (somehow) as "preaching another Gospel?" What will you say when you are shown that they are just the First Son of the Vineyard Owner's, and you have condemned them out of hand not because of some sin of theirs against you, some valid complaint you may have, but rather because they did not agree with you on some point or other? Or even worse, because you do not agree with them, as you have been called to do?

 

[bbyrd009]

Red bolding mine.

Once again you see what you want to see and completely ignore what we have said and backed up by scripture.

i am not ignoring them, but offering a counterpoint to them. I am not qualified or even trying to say that those are "wrong," ok, just that there are other valid perspectives there that you may not agree with, but cannot condemn out of hand. Or i guess i should say "should not," as you (all?) are going to anyway.

And by this you are attempting to disallow a "we" that are not "they" that you have already discredited. So in your opinion you do not have to be a Calvinist, so what, Muslims have already demonstrated that at some point you discern a "they" based upon beliefs, and not actions. Hindus are going to hell because they do not agree with you, and so it is ok to be a jerk where they are concerned. Etc.

The point possibly being that see, you do not contemplate how whacked you might be, but how whacked everyone else is. The only thing worse than Catholic dogma is Calvinist dogma imo, at least from my brief crash course the last couple days, because after all who is a Calvinist anymore lol, may as well worship Zeus or something.

How do you like me now?

 

[bbyrd009]

Red bolding mine.

Once again you see what you want to see and completely ignore what we have said and backed up by scripture. No, you don't have to be a Calvinist to be saved. No free will necessary.

i mean, really, out of that whole post, this is what you choose to respond to?

 

[bbyrd009]

How about this; before we even continue, I need to ask you [bbyrd009] a question, and this is simple yes or no
Is the Bible the inspired, inerrant word of God?

we have already gone over that, and that ball is in your court now. If "In the beginning was Bible, and Bible was with God, and Bible was God" is true, then yes, and if false, then no.

The Bible is God~Breathed, and Word is Breath, so there is a close relationship, but people require that the Book be the Word so that when they misinterpret a passage out of all context, or refuse to reflect upon other verses that would give a more holistic view, rather than the stunted view they wish to propagate, they can fall back on this "the Book is the inerrant Word" yack. Rather than accept that the Bible provides the counterpoint to whatever doctrinal extreme you hold dear, such as limited atonement or etc.

So how about this, before we even continue; be it recognized that anyone who holds that the Bible is the Word should be ignored, and further laughed at and pointed at derisively, until such time as they wake up and smell the coffee. Howbow dah?

 

[bbyrd009]

which belief i of course am not advocating, but please see the point here. You do not wish to be discounted for your beliefs, but you have no problem discounting others for theirs.

 

[Mjh29]

we have already gone over that, and that ball is in your court now. If "In the beginning was Bible, and Bible was with God, and Bible was God" is true, then yes, and if false, then no.

The Bible is God~Breathed, and Word is Breath, so there is a close relationship, but people require that the Book be the Word so that when they misinterpret a passage out of all context, or refuse to reflect upon other verses that would give a more holistic view, rather than the stunted view they wish to propagate, they can fall back on this "the Book is the inerrant Word" yack. Rather than accept that the Bible provides the counterpoint to whatever doctrinal extreme you hold dear, such as limited atonement or etc.

So how about this, before we even continue; be it recognized that anyone who holds that the Bible is the Word should be ignored, and further laughed at and pointed at derisively, until such time as they wake up and smell the coffee. Howbow dah?

I said yes or no not long drawn out and vague. I didn't ask you if it was the word, is it inerrant?

 

[bbyrd009]

I said yes or no not long drawn out and vague.

so what. A pox on what you said. You wanna be master over something, go get yoself a dog bro.

I didn't ask you if it was the word

Is the Bible the inspired, inerrant word?

ok, so you didn't then, whatever. As to "inerrant," that will depend upon what you define as "Bible," i guess. Is the KJV a Bible? Because i read "Easter" in the KJV, but i read "Passover" in the Bible. So again these are matters of interpretation, except possibly to you, who is of course nonetheless confident that sects can be called out as cults without giving offense. Or i guess it is just ok to offend them, because they do not agree with you or something--not sure how that works tbh.

 

[Mjh29]

so what. A pox on what you said. You wanna be master over something, go get yoself a dog bro.


ok, so you didn't then, whatever. As to "inerrant," that will depend upon what you define as "Bible," i guess. Is the KJV a Bible? Because i read "Easter" in the KJV, but i read "Passover" in the Bible. So again these are matters of interpretation, except possibly to you, who is of course nonetheless confident that sects can be called out as cults without giving offense. Or i guess it is just ok to offend them, because they do not agree with you or something--not sure how that works tbh.

1. There are different translations, but yes, God protects His word. So I will take your long, drawn out answer as a no
2. Unlike some people, i do t believe that we're all ok, and we all worship the same God, and we can all just get along..... hahahah no. Sorry, welcome to reality. God has set aside for himself a people, and contary to your belief, they dont have to be Calvinists [though it does help to be right.] They must simply hold to the fundamentals of the faith. And before you go asking me 'well what are the pillars?'
Nicene Creed