Moses and Jesus taught free will

How does that show how anything can be, that was not intentionally caused by the Omniscient Creator?
God said He doesn't lie. I referenced Scripture that shows that God personally referenced the lies of false prophets as not coming from Him.

How can you possibly claim that God created their words. The Scripture prove yo wrong.
 
And the problem with that is...?

Those that have the Gospel preached them are not "dead corpses". They are living human beings.

It is preposterous to claim that a person who can reason is a dead corpse. The dead KNOW NOTHING.....

Ecc_9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing
 
civic said:
No God cteated them for destruction without ever having any chance to believe or receive the gospel through regeneration. Remember calvinists believe God must regenerate you first prior to believing since you are a corpse who is dead. So all those who God does not regenerate were predestined to damnation the elect reprobates in double predestination.

I hope you mean, "option to believe" —not, "chance", to believe. Do you agree with me that anything "happening by chance" is logically self-contradictory? "Chance" is only a placeholder for, "I don't know". It is a human shortcut. But see below, where I continue to respond to your claim.

makesends said:
And the problem with that is...?
The problem is that makes God God. Can't have that, since God is love.
God is love.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8 Love never fails.

God doesn’t act contrary to His nature. Calvinists predestination is unloving. Tulip is unloving.

Love and Sovereignty

What is knowable about God is based on what he has revealed about Himself in scripture. Any proposition or doctrine of Him being otherwise without becoming contrary to who He has revealed Himself to be is nothing but the evilest assault on the character and nature of God. It amounts to proposing that God can be contrary to Himself without changing. God is immutable and does not change.

God is sovereign and also love. Both sovereignty and love as they intersect in God have been revealed plainly to us by God. He has done this both through his word and his works. And he has sworn never to change.

God's sovereignty is never exercised in violation of his love. His love is very everlasting, for God is love. It has not the slightest shadow of variation, and it, not his sovereignty, is the basis upon which his moral standards rest. Any promotion of any doctrine that represents God as acting in a way that violates his love appealing to the fact that He is sovereign and so can do it is pure evil.

With God, might is not right. The fact that he can do something is not a justification for him doing it. The fact that God can damn everyone without a reason is not an argument for justifying teaching that he does as in the Calvinist doctrine of double predestination. All that he can do is restricted by the rule he values most - love.

If it will violate love, God will not and cannot do it for that would be contrary to His nature and character as a loving God. And if it will violate love then it is not right. God cannot make it right by doing it just because he is sovereign. If he does it just because he is sovereign then he would not be God again but something else.

God can do any and everything is what sovereignty stands for. God will only do what is loving is what righteousness stands for.

Righteousness is the foundation of his throne. In other words, righteousness is the constraint of his sovereign rule. Love is how God rules His creation. Sovereignty, Righteousness, Justice, Mercy and all the other attributes of God fall under the umbrella of His love.

What if God’s essence, his spirit, is more like light, an orb radiating all his characteristics from a core of some type of energy, say love?

Not only does this configuration fit scripture declaring that God is spirit (John 4:24), that he is light (1 John 1:5), and that he is love (1 John 4:8), but it also fits the living out of God’s image in the body of Jesus Christ. In him, we do not witness a love regulated by sovereignty, but a sovereignty regulated by love.

Thinking and living in these terms does not in any way shelve the idea of God’s sovereignty, but it does place it within the heart of God’s love. From love, he rules.

Therefore, instead of asking how an all-sovereign God exercises his love, we might ask how an all-loving God exercises his sovereignty. This, I think, is the better conversation. l.meyers

1 John 4:7-5:4

God is love
. The same construction is found in 1 John 1:5 ("God is light") and in 1 John 4:24 ("God is spirit"). The noun love, referring to a process, is the predicate of the sentence; it says something about God's quality, character, and activity. The translator must take care not to give a rendering that equates God and love. This would imply that the clause order is reversible and that God is love and "love is God" are both true propositions-which is certainly not what John meant to say.

After "love is of God" in v. 7a the present clause functions as a climax: God is not only the origin of love, but love itself. At first sight this construction might suggest that John intends to identify God with an abstract principle. That this is not the case becomes clear, however, when one looks at the context, where God is represented as the personal agent of the act of loving.

The proposition "God loves us" might stand alongside such statements as, "God creates," "God rules," "God judges." Accordingly, "God is love" does not mean to say that love is one of God's activities, but that all His activity is loving activity. Whether he creates, or rules, or judges, he does so in love. All that he does is the expression of his nature which is-to love. ‡

The Greek construction
cannot be followed in several languages because a corresponding verbal noun simply does not exist in the language, or, if existing, cannot be thus construed, or, if thus construed, would not express the same meaning. Therefore, translators have tried to express the force of this construction otherwise, for example, 'God's character is to habitually-love,' 'all God's deeds are loving deeds,' 'God is one who continually and really loves,' 'God has-as-quality love.' (from the UBS New Testament Handbook Series. Copyright © 1961-1997, by United Bible Societies.)

God is love, God is light or God is spirit are what is known as an anarthrous predicate. John does not say that light is God, but only that God is light. The two phrases are not interchangeable. The word God in the Greek has the article, the word light does not so it means that the two words are not interchangeable. The absence of the article emphasizes ones character or nature. It literally would read: God as to His nature is light.The same is true with the phrase God is love. Love is not God. In other words He is a loving God. It is Gods nature or character to be loving.

1 John 4:8
God is love ho ‎‎Theos ‎‎agapee ‎‎estin‎. Anarthrous predicate, not ‎hee ‎‎agapee‎. John does not say that love is God, but only that God is love. The two terms are not interchangeable. God is also light (1 John 1:5) and spirit (John 4:24). (from Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament)

conclusion: God is love and all His attributes flow from His nature as a loving God. God cannot act contrary to His nature. In Calvinism God acts contrary to His nature and by definition is unloving.

hope this helps !!!
We have Romans 1 telling us that they already knew him, having sufficient evidence —even empirical evidence— that he exists, "wherefore they are without excuse." —but that they suppressed the truth, and "did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God." And that chapter's descriptions of what God does, in response to what they chose, does not sound like what we would call loving.

You, in response to what I am saying here, would probably show Romans 1 to be describing God responding only, and not decreeing from the beginning that they be reprobate, yet I have not heard you explain how God can create them, knowing their end, without intending their end, nor, in fact, intending everything he knew would influence them to that end.

The question, then, is not whether his intending their reprobation is loving or not, but whether our notions of love are not used to describe a God who falls short of logical rendering and of the descriptions of his deeds in history.

We MUST NOT depend on our slow knowledge of God's love, to render doctrine.
 
I hope you mean, "option to believe" —not, "chance", to believe. Do you agree with me that anything "happening by chance" is logically self-contradictory? "Chance" is only a placeholder for, "I don't know". It is a human shortcut. But see below, where I continue to respond to your claim.

There is no option if there is no chance.

Deu 32:20 And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith. KJV
Deu 32:20 And he said, ‘I will hide my face from them; I will see what their end will be, for they are a perverse generation, children in whom is no faithfulness. ESV


God's rejection subjects all mankind together in "HOPE"..... "That which is seen is not "Hope". Even God hopes.....

Rom 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility – not willingly but because of God who subjected it – in hope
Rom 8:24 For in hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope, because who hopes for what he sees?

Calvinism is fundamentally flawed these types of conversations should end about 5 minutes of conversation.

As I've said before, your view of God is that God is a "man" sitting on an ant hill with a magnifying glass randomly letting so ants free...... while joyfully burn the vast majority with unquenchable fire.
 
The question, then, is not whether his intending their reprobation is loving or not, but whether our notions of love are not used to describe a God who falls short of logical rendering and of the descriptions of his deeds in history.

We MUST NOT depend on our slow knowledge of God's love, to render doctrine.

Agree. There was a time, as a brand new Christian, when I questioned why God would do this or that. For example, how could a loving God use animal sacrifice, I wondered? I'm an animal lover!

Eventually, I realized a foundational truth: God is God. God is God, and one would have to be foolish beyond measure to impose one's personal views upon any text of Scripture. That's why I now just take Scripture for what it says. On a personal level, I have plenty of reason to ask why God did this or that, but God willing, I try always to come back to the fact that God is God and nothing he does can be considered by a human to be wrong.
 
There is no option if there is no chance.


1) "Option" does not imply actuality, nor even possibility, except in the mind of the person perceiving the option. It only implies choice. Furthermore, the fact that we have a word, "option", that means something to us, does not mean that that meaning is logically sound.

2) "Chance" determining anything, is logically self-contradictory. The fact that we have a word, "chance", that means something to us, does not mean that that our thinking that uses that word, is logically sound.
 
God said He doesn't lie. I referenced Scripture that shows that God personally referenced the lies of false prophets as not coming from Him.

How can you possibly claim that God created their words. The Scripture prove yo wrong.
Since you continue to insist that I respond to you, and none of your own kind will call you down on your eisegesis, even on your obviously fallacious and antagonistic trolling, I will answer.

Of course God does not lie. Jeremiah 23 is talking about God not commanding the prophets to say what they are saying. They are disobeying. It does not reference what the Calvinist is referring to by decree.
 
God's rejection subjects all mankind together in "HOPE"..... "That which is seen is not "Hope". Even God hopes.....

Rom 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility – not willingly but because of God who subjected it – in hope
Rom 8:24 For in hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope, because who hopes for what he sees?

Calvinism is fundamentally flawed these types of conversations should end about 5 minutes of conversation.

As I've said before, your view of God is that God is a "man" sitting on an ant hill with a magnifying glass randomly letting so ants free...... while joyfully burn the vast majority with unquenchable fire.
Do you never relate the word, "hope," in scripture, with the meaning, "expectation"? Do you honestly think God does not know how any or all particular detail(s) will work out?

You are right this should have ended in 5 minutes. But no, you continue to bite at my heel like a little Pomeranian.

Your view of God is a man sitting on an ant hill. That's just about the size of your god, too. There's nothing random about my God. But you have created him in your image.
 
1) "Option" does not imply actuality, nor even possibility,

Never said anything about actuality. Possibly is most definitely within the scope of the English word "option".

English definition of option = a thing that is or may be chosen.

If you would like to propose a different definition, then please do so.

except in the mind of the person perceiving the option. It only implies choice. Furthermore, the fact that we have a word, "option", that means something to us, does not mean that that meaning is logically sound.

On the contrary, we have such an English word because it "is logically sound" to us.

2) "Chance" determining anything, is logically self-contradictory. The fact that we have a word, "chance", that means something to us, does not mean that that our thinking that uses that word, is logically sound.

Jesus Himself spoke of "chance". For your reference.....συγκυρία

Luke 10:31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

Which is a contrast of τυγχάνω. Which is purpose as found in

Act 19:11 And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul:
 
Since you continue to insist that I respond to you, and none of your own kind will call you down on your eisegesis, even on your obviously fallacious and antagonistic trolling, I will answer.

By all means.... "Bring it on"......

You had plenty of opportunity. You're not better off now. Still the same deficient theology. I insist you answer line by line. Precept by precept.

Of course God does not lie. Jeremiah 23 is talking about God not commanding the prophets to say what they are saying. They are disobeying. It does not reference what the Calvinist is referring to by decree.

Sure it does. God specifically distances Himself from what you declare is primary cause. I believe what God said. Not what you say.
 
English definition of option = a thing that is or may be chosen.
Really??? How does that defeat my claim that only one thing is actually possible? The fact that we think the other is possible, and so we choose from among them, does not mean that it is possible. You only can show that a choice is made. OPTION: a thing that is or may be chosen. Who is saying otherwise?

FURTHER: As I have said, the definition —Webster's official or whoever's you claim for an authority— mean nothing but what we use the word to mean. The definition does not imply that there is actual truth to the term. To say, "possibility", does not tell us whether the thing we have described by that term is actually possible. It only means that we think it could be.
 
By all means.... "Bring it on"......

You had plenty of opportunity. You're not better off now. Still the same deficient theology. I insist you answer line by line. Precept by precept.



Sure it does. God specifically distances Himself from what you declare is primary cause. I believe what God said. Not what you say.
What God says is not what you say, as your eisegesis has demonstrated.
 
Do you never relate the word, "hope," in scripture, with the meaning, "expectation"? Do you honestly think God does not know how any or all particular detail(s) will work out?

I've tried to engage you multiple times on this subject. I have repeatedly answered you the same way.

God does not know our sin. He has promised to remember them no more. Do you believe God is incapable of forgetting our sin? I don't expect an answer from you. You can't deny this. You'll just ignore it. I've waited over 30 years for someone to actually try to answer it. By all means, please be the first.

Expectation???? Oh how wonderful that you'd turn "Hope" into an purposed expectation of endless debauchery. Hope is... PURE....

Yes. I believe what God said. He has subjected the life of all creatures together in "hope". Which is clearly stated in the Scripture I referenced as "not being seen"..... You can't deny it. It obviously doesn't bother you to deny what the Scriptures say. Go right ahead. I'll just keep believing the Scriptures.

Why are you ignoring Deut 32:20? I asked some allumnia from DTS about this reference many years ago. They ignored it too.

Pray tell, Does God know sin to the degree that He knows/entertains the endless sins of the unbeliever? Does God fellowship in that knowledge? Does God entertain man's debauchery to degree of experiencing it Himself?

Such thoughts are necessary to deal with when you falsely claim that God "knows" the depraved choices of sinners. I mean seriously, you believe that God purposed such debauchery. There is no purpose in such debauchery. To make such claims is to "soil" the Good Character of God.

You are right this should have ended in 5 minutes. But no, you continue to bite at my heel like a little Pomeranian.

Your view of God is a man sitting on an ant hill. That's just about the size of your god, too. There's nothing random about my God. But you have created him in your image.

I've stated my views extensive on this forum. I have never given anyone the impression that I believe God sits on ant hill enjoying Himself killing ants.

You reference the "Power of God" with sinful characteristics. I haven't done that at all. Please reference where I have.
 
Really??? How does that defeat my claim that only one thing is actually possible?

"a thing" isn't a reference to a definitive choice. Have you heard of the "the definitive article"? Grammar.

The fact that we think the other is possible, and so we choose from among them, does not mean that it is possible. You only can show that a choice is made. OPTION: a thing that is or may be chosen. Who is saying otherwise?

Oversimplification. You insist there are only one choice that is purposed. Which is contrary to choice itself. As I've told you before. It doesn't matter when you choose to use the bathroom. There is more than one choice to be made and only the choice to wait till your bowls bust will cause harm.

I insist you answer if you only have one choice as to when to use the bathroom. Why not answer?

It is my belief that God doesn't purpose when we use the bathroom or many other things that take place in life.

FURTHER: As I have said, the definition —Webster's official or whoever's you claim for an authority— mean nothing but what we use the word to mean. The definition does not imply that there is actual truth to the term. To say, "possibility", does not tell us whether the thing we have described by that term is actually possible. It only means that we think it could be.

Then give your definition. I'll entertain the possibility or it being closer to reality than the work of Webster or any other reference.
 
Details. Details.....

"a thing" isn't a reference to a definitive choice. Have you heard of the "the definitive article"? Grammar.
Details. Details.....

(lol, btw, it's "definite article", but, carry on.....
Oversimplification. You insist there are only one choice that is purposed. Which is contrary to choice itself. As I've told you before. It doesn't matter when you choose to use the bathroom. There is more than one choice to be made and only the choice to wait till your bowls bust will cause harm.
I'm insisting that there is only one possible outcome. Are you conflating "choice" with "option" again?

It's only contrary to choice if the creature is equivalent to God.

Who said it mattered when I choose to use the bathroom? What in the world are you going on about?
I insist you answer if you only have one choice as to when to use the bathroom. Why not answer?

It is my belief that God doesn't purpose when we use the bathroom or many other things that take place in life.
I have many choices. But only one outcome per choice. If you can demonstrate that there are two decisions made, be my guest.

Maybe what you are trying to say, by 'choice', in some of your sentences, is 'choice made', or 'decision made'; approximately the same thing as to say 'outcome'.

Then give your definition. I'll entertain the possibility or it being closer to reality than the work of Webster or any other reference.
You are completely missing my point. I'm not saying they give a wrong or mistaken definition. Look through the dictionary —you will find many words of things that don't exist in any sense but imaginary or figurative or rhetorical etc. There may be a perfectly apt definition for unicorn, but that doesn't prove that there is such a thing as a unicorn. The fact we use "chance" and "random" as substitutes for the more accurate, "I don't know", doesn't make the definition wrong. But your trust in the notions is very much mistaken, no matter how useful they have been to you in your considerations of reality.
 
Details. Details.....

(lol, btw, it's "definite article", but, carry on.....
Correct. My mistake. Can you make a mistake? You ignored a mistake you made by point at one I made. Typical Calvinist response. You maybe incapable of admitting you are wrong. This has nothing to do with only one possible choice.
 
It's only contrary to choice if the creature is equivalent to God.

Who said it mattered when I choose to use the bathroom? What in the world are you going on about?
Don't play dumb. You said God predetermined everything. Do you not know what everything includes?

It would appear that you are god by your own standards.
 
Back
Top Bottom