Moses and Jesus taught free will

[makesends]

makesends said:
Ok, let's say, for the sake of argument, that Jesus did "try". My opinion is that Jesus operated by his human nature.

So are you saying Jesus spent time saying things which were not the will of the Father? When Jesus was trying, to cause people to believe he was amiss from what God the Father was directing him to do? Respectfully though....you might want to reconsider that.

Wow! Good point! I hadn't considered that to be one of the possible implications of what I said. (And that implication might be relevant to the definition of sin, which Jesus did not.)

No, I am not saying that Jesus' human nature "spent time saying things which were not the will of the Father", any more than I am saying that his mental anguish at Gethsemane was "all in his head".

The gospels are replete with demonstrations of his human nature. He did not, for example, consciously pre-know ALL things, but only what the Father showed him. He did what he did by the power of the Father, and not of himself. He spoke what the Father told him to say. And his will and emotions were, no doubt, fully inclined the Father's way, I don't think he knew the heart of everyone with whom he came into contact, but only, rather, those the Father had revealed to him. He was not yet glorified. His human mind was only human, not entirely full of every detail the Father knew. Jesus wept at Lazarus' grave; did the Father weep, or rejoice? Jesus had human emotions, and a human spirit. The Father had neither.

So you have God pleading with people to repent but believe but he really doesn't want them to? How can you tell me that makes any sense? Sorry but this should demonstrate to you that Calvinism doesn't make any sense.

"Want" is an interesting word, when applied by humans to God. God lacks nothing, and intends nothing except what is sure to come to pass. If the word, "pleading", is suitable there, then it still doesn't imply that God doesn't know whether they will repent or not. Or do you claim some lack of omniscience on the part of God? It was only Jesus, who "set aside his God-ness" (so to speak); and that, to be entirely dependent on his God, just as we should do.

Sorry, but you should probably say things more like, "...doesn't make any sense to me" —after all, the notion that freewill runs free of absolute causation doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[makesends]

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:1-2). John's language here is unmistakable. Jesus died for the sins of John's audience (undoubtedly believers in Christ) as well as for those of the entire world.

God showed his Mercy by sending his son.

Ha! John's language there was very mistakeable. One of us is mistaken there.

To wit: Contextually, John is talking about the necessity of the atonement —that is, upon WHOM the atonement depends— and not the scope of its effect. There is no atonement for anyone except through Jesus' atoning sacrifice. HE is the atoning sacrifice.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Ha! John's language there was very mistakeable. One of us is mistaken there.

To wit: Contextually, John is talking about the necessity of the atonement —that is, upon WHOM the atonement depends— and not the scope of its effect. There is no atonement for anyone except through Jesus' atoning sacrifice. HE is the atoning sacrifice.

No, no, no. When John said "the whole world" he was talking about Israel.

Sauce for the goose.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I agree, yet, without even knowing which ones are "the objects of his mercy", I find somehow that I love them all.

So you love those you don't know? How can you make such a claim. What is so wondrous about God is the fact He fully knows us and yet still loves us.

You can not love something properly until you really know it. Such love is shallow and destined for disappointment. It has no lasting substance.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I'm guessing from the general tenor of this site, and indeed of the general mindset of current Christendom, that by "power of choice between alternatives" you mean (if, for example, there are two) 50/50 chance of choosing either one —that both are actually possible.

When a person chooses for or against God he is fulfilling God’s will (plan, decree) concerning that choice.

Nothing more than the predetermined outcome of the result of such choices for all who choose. Not the choice itself.... Such shallow thinking. These are the thoughts of those who are looking to prove their own preconceived ideas. Not the complexity of those who look for the truth.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I'm going to start adopting woke terminology in these threads.

You free-willers are just bigot Calvinphobes. I'm here for sovereignty justice.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I'm going to start adopting woke terminology in these threads.

You free-willers are just bigot Calvinphobes. I'm here for sovereignty justice.

Such hatred for freewillers. Freewillers must be the new racism of choice. Or is that the new ethnic hatred of choice.

You'd think you'd have empathy for those you once shared a self described delusion with.....

 

[makesends]

Such hatred for freewillers. Freewillers must be the new racism of choice. Or is that the new ethnic hatred of choice.

You'd think you'd have empathy for those you once shared a self described delusion with.....

Pot calling the kettle black?

 

[makesends]

duplicate

 

[atpollard]

You have this way of thinking that God shows favoritism for no just reason. Now come on we all know that if all are under sin....all of us have fallen short of the glory or God......there would be no just reason for God to show favoritism one over another and yet that's what's been passed down to you the way to think about God. Here's a major problem. Please consider it.

I have considered it and your alternative BAFFLES me.

You have this way of thinking that God shows favoritism for no just reason.

ALTERNATIVE: God has a VERY GOOD reason for showing favoritism!

Now come on we all know that if all are under sin....

Agreed, we all know that ... GOD said so in the Bible.

all of us have fallen short of the glory or God.....

Agreed, we all know that ... GOD said so in the Bible.

there would be no just reason for God to show favoritism one over another

We agree, there is no just reason for GOD to show favoritism. God's favoritism is related to GRACE (unmerited favor) not JUSTICE. Actually, we even have a NAME for the fact that nobody deserves God's favoritism ... UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION.

and yet that's what's been passed down to you the way to think about God.

ALTERNATIVE: God shows favoritism by saving those that DESERVE saving. Aren't YOU such a 'special snowflake'? You were better than all those DAMNED SINNERS that rejected God because you were LUCKY enough to HEAR the Truth and SMART enough to BELIEVE the Truth with your precious LIBERTINE FREE WILL. God sure is lucky to have SUPERIOR followers like YOU that DESERVE saving ... not like us "lesser snowflakes" who believe that we are no different than the damned except that God chose to show MERCY on us for reasons that have NOTHING to do with US and everything to do with a God who says "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOMEVER I HAVE MERCY" [Exodus 33, Romans 9].

Here's a major problem. Please consider it.

I agree. It is a major problem and I hope YOU will consider taking your own advice and reconsider it.

Why DOES God save some and not all?

• Because SOME deserve it and OTHERS do not?
• For reasons that have NOTHING to do with anyone DESERVING it and EVERYTHING to do with GOD choosing to show MERCY on WHOMEVER HE HAS MERCY [an act of Love towards an undeserving person].

 

[praise_yeshua]

Pot calling the kettle black?

That was the intent of my comments. Just returning the same.

Don't be angry at me. I'm just challenging you.

 

[civic]

I have considered it and your alternative BAFFLES me.


ALTERNATIVE: God has a VERY GOOD reason for showing favoritism!


Agreed, we all know that ... GOD said so in the Bible.


Agreed, we all know that ... GOD said so in the Bible.


We agree, there is no just reason for GOD to show favoritism. God's favoritism is related to GRACE (unmerited favor) not JUSTICE. Actually, we even have a NAME for the fact that nobody deserves God's favoritism ... UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION.


ALTERNATIVE: God shows favoritism by saving those that DESERVE saving. Aren't YOU such a 'special snowflake'? You were better than all those DAMNED SINNERS that rejected God because you were LUCKY enough to HEAR the Truth and SMART enough to BELIEVE the Truth with your precious LIBERTINE FREE WILL. God sure is lucky to have SUPERIOR followers like YOU that DESERVE saving ... not like us "lesser snowflakes" who believe that we are no different than the damned except that God chose to show MERCY on us for reasons that have NOTHING to do with US and everything to do with a God who says "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOMEVER I HAVE MERCY" [Exodus 33, Romans 9].


I agree. It is a major problem and I hope YOU will consider taking your own advice and reconsider it.

Why DOES God save some and not all?

• Because SOME deserve it and OTHERS do not?
• For reasons that have NOTHING to do with anyone DESERVING it and EVERYTHING to do with GOD choosing to show MERCY on WHOMEVER HE HAS MERCY [an act of Love towards an undeserving person].

Romans 2:11- For God does not show FAVORITISM.

Acts 10:34- Then Peter began to speak: "I now truly understand that God does not show FAVORITISM

2 Chron 19:7- Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons

James 2 condemns favoritism

end of discussion.


hope this helps !!!

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Romans 2:11- For God does not show FAVORITISM.

Acts 10:34- Then Peter began to speak: "I now truly understand that God does not show FAVORITISM

2 Chron 19:7- Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons

James 2 condemns favoritism

end of discussion.


hope this helps !!!

Favoritism implies that God considers some people deserve salvation while others don't. That's not Calvinism.

All we know about who God picks is that he foreknows those who he saves. Not foresight about what they'll do, but he knows us before we are even born. What that means is a mystery to me, because God never explains it. And God is under no obligation to explain it.

 

[civic]

Favoritism implies that God considers some people deserve salvation while others don't. That's not Calvinism.

All we know about who God picks is that he foreknows those who he saves. Not foresight about what they'll do, but he knows us before we are even born. What that means is a mystery to me, because God never explains it. And God is under no obligation to explain it.

@atpollard just said God shows favoritism in his last post but I agree with you God does not.

 

[Rockson]

Wow! Good point! I hadn't considered that to be one of the possible implications of what I said.

OK.

(And that implication might be relevant to the definition of sin, which Jesus did not.)

?????

No, I am not saying that Jesus' human nature "spent time saying things which were not the will of the Father",

Sorry makesends but that's nonsense and a diversion. You've injected here something you take as a given which you haven't substantiated as anywhere near true and that's this....that when Jesus was talking to Nicodemus you don't want it to be that he was bringing a natural illustrations to connect to a spiritual

reality (the wind being like the Spirit) Because it was a natural comparison you want to make it seem that Jesus was in the flesh and surely wasn't seeking to cause Nicodemus to believe.

That's why you said the words, "...that Jesus human nature" I believe he had that but how you're using it is amiss.

The gospels are replete with demonstrations of his human nature.

Sure there are! I don't deny that. I do reject though how you try to swing that around to make it seem that when Jesus sought to make people to believe (by natural illustrations) that he was somehow not walking in the Spirit. Or to put it another way you're rejecting Jn 3 : 8 as not meaning anything for it can't be used for spiritual effect and change.

He did not, for example, consciously pre-know ALL things, but only what the Father showed him. He did what he did by the power of the Father, and not of himself. He spoke what the Father told him to say.

I agree.

"Want" is an interesting word, when applied by humans to God. God lacks nothing,

People say that like a religious mantra but can be challenged on certain levels. I say he lacks the joy of not always see us in obedience to him. The Bible clearly says the Holy Spirit can be grieved.

and intends nothing except what is sure to come to pass.

But how you're using this word "intends" is very deceptive. That's your hyper Calvinistic way of thinking everything that is, exists because God ordained it. Sorry don't agree with it.

Sorry, but you should probably say things more like, "...doesn't make any sense to me"

Doesn't matter to me. Have it your way. It doesn't make sense to me. Oh before I leave. Make sure you say that about things that don't make sense to you OK ....just don't tell people it doesn't make sense.

 

[makesends]

Romans 2:11- For God does not show FAVORITISM.

Acts 10:34- Then Peter began to speak: "I now truly understand that God does not show FAVORITISM

2 Chron 19:7- Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons

James 2 condemns favoritism

end of discussion.


hope this helps !!!

Why is that the end of discussion? I hope that was just a figure of speech.

Romans 2:11, in context, is a reference to God's righteous judgement —not to whether he has any favorites.

Acts 10:34, in context, is a reference to the fact that God "accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right." —i.e. not just the Jew, but the Gentile as well —not to whether he has any that he particularly loves.

2 Chron 19:7, in context, is about eschewing favoritism in judgement; that God's judgement is impartial —it is not about whether he chose any particular ones.

James 2 condemns showing favoritism toward the rich over the poor —it is not about whether God has special plans for those he created to be eternally with him in Heaven.


Do you need to see references to God's special concern for the Israelites in the OT? Do you think God has no special plans concerning the members of the Body of Christ? Have you forgotten "Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated"?

 

[civic]

Why is that the end of discussion? I hope that was just a figure of speech.

Romans 2:11, in context, is a reference to God's righteous judgement —not to whether he has any favorites.

Acts 10:34, in context, is a reference to the fact that God "accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right." —i.e. not just the Jew, but the Gentile as well.

2 Chron 19:7, in context, is about eschewing favoritism in judgement; that God's judgement is impartial

James 2 condemns showing favoritism toward the rich over the poor


Do you need to see references to God's special concern for the Israelites in the OT? Do you think God has no special plans concerning the members of the Body of Christ? Have you forgotten "Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated"?

And God is not " judging " anyone in election/predestination before the creation of the world and damning the majority of men created in His image to eternal torment in the lake of fire ?

 

[Rockson]

What that means is a mystery to me, because God never explains it. And God is under no obligation to explain it.

Oh come on! Really. If you didn't feel you were one of the elect or if you found out you weren't when you thought you were there is no way I can believe you wouldn't take the position that God isn't obligated to explain it. Now come on. Sorry but NEVER will I believe what they're saying when a Calvinists says this. Readers you can decide.

 

[makesends]

Rockson said:
So are you saying Jesus spent time saying things which were not the will of the Father? When Jesus was trying, to cause people to believe he was amiss from what God the Father was directing him to do?

makesends said:
I hadn't considered that to be one of the possible implications of what I said. (And that implication might be relevant to the definition of sin, which Jesus did not.)

?????

Man has a tendency to call sin, some things that God does not. I was brought up thinking that Rock n Roll Music was almost as bad as dancing which was as bad as drinking which was right up there with adultery which was tantamount to rape and murder. I have even heard on these forums that some things Jesus did were sin.

But this is off topic.

 

[makesends]

And God is not " judging " anyone in election/predestination before the creation of the world and damning the majority of men created in His image to eternal torment in the lake of fire ?

Huh? Speak plainly. Are you saying that Calvinism teaches that God damns anyone for what they have not done? But, to be honest, this sounds like a red herring, or moving the goalposts.


You are sounding sarcastic here, but I don't know what you are referring to, nor how it applies to the subject at hand.