Theo1689
Well-known member
Modern man is arrogant and unyielding in their opinions of themselves.
If you are an example, then your claim is certainly true.
Modern man is arrogant and unyielding in their opinions of themselves.
A miracle. An open future is unknowable. So a miracle covers it. God's foreknowledge is not grounded in cause in either direction.
It is absurd to claim determinism is not contrary to free willAnd what the necessity was, is defined in the context. Basically Paul pulling rank on him and insisting he take the save back.
And it's absurd to claim that would remove his free will in the libertarian sense.
Your assertion above, even if it were true, would not be evidenced AT ALL in this passage, that has nothing to do with determined.It is absurd to claim determinism is not contrary to free will
free will
[ˌfrē ˈwil]
NOUN
- the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
Far from itThen you have brought in an unjustified 3rd party that determines both Gods knowing and man’s doing…
Gods knowledge must be grounded in something…
What is the thing that solidifies God’s knowledge and man’s doing
I told you what my position isSo you would question the E in the acronym PROVIDE
It is absurd to claim determinism is not contrary to free will
free will
[ˌfrē ˈwil]
NOUN
- the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
Okay. You part ways with your Provisionist pals on that one. Fair enoughI told you what my position is
There is no need to repeat it
WrongYour assertion above, even if it were true, would not be evidenced AT ALL in this passage, that has nothing to do with determined.
As I just demonstrated in the last post, the passage has nothing to do with libertarian free will and determinism. Most anyone on your own side would admit that.
whateverOkay. You part ways with your Provisionist pals on that one. Fair enough
So if God determines something it is not necessary?Wrong
Determinism makes things necessary
and you just ignored the dictionary
and what the translations show
Wrong
Determinism makes things necessary
and you just ignored the dictionary
and what the translations show
Calling it “A miracle” does not “cover it”. You could have just as easily called it “A mystery” but neither one removes the illogical problem.
Its simply a cop out so you don’t have to justify your illogical view… so you can have your cake and eat it to.
It’s still a problem… you just swept it under the rug.
To be fair we all appeal to mystery at some point.Calling it “A miracle” does not “cover it”. You could have just as easily called it “A mystery” but neither one removes the illogical problem.
Its simply a cop out so you don’t have to justify your illogical view… so you can have your cake and eat it to.
It’s still a problem… you just swept it under the rug.
…
To be fair we all appeal to mystery at some point.
We can't explain how God's word exerts power. By what mechanism?
It's not the word itself, but God, exerting his power through his word. If we hear the word, but it's not accompanied by the power of the Holy Spirit, then it does not save us, although it does accomplish other purposes.To be fair we all appeal to mystery at some point.
We can't explain how God's word exerts power. By what mechanism?
Only determinism makes things absolutely necessary.
(ARV 2005) but without thy mind I would do nothing, that thy goodness should not be as of necessity, but of free will. (ASV-2014) but without thy mind I would do nothing; that thy goodness should not be as of necessity, but of free will. (Anderson) but, without your consent, I was not willing to do any thing, that your good deed might not be as a matter of necessity, but one of free-will. (ASV) but without thy mind I would do nothing; that thy goodness should not be as of necessity, but of free will. (FAA) but I did not want to do anything without your opinion, so that your good deed would not be as it were under compulsion, but of free will. (GDBY_NT) but without your consent I did not wish to do anything; in order that your good might not be by constraint, but by the free will: (GW) Yet, I didn't want to do anything without your consent. I want you to do this favor for me out of your own free will without feeling forced to do it. (LEB) But apart from your consent, I wanted to do nothing, in order that your good deed might be not as according to necessity, but according to your own free will. (MRC) but without your consent I did not want to do anything, that your goodness might not be by necessity, but of your own free will. (MNT) But without your consent I was unwilling to do anything, so that your kindness to me might be of your own free will, and not of compulsion. (NTVR) but without thy mind I would do nothing; that thy goodness should not be as of necessity, but of free will. (Revised Standard ) but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own free will. (RNT) but without your consent I am unwilling to do anything, so that your goodness may not be of necessity but of free will. (RSV-CE) but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own free will. (TLV) But I didn’t want to do anything without your consent, so that your goodness wouldn’t be by force but by free will. (WEB) But I was willing to do nothing without your consent, that your goodness would not be as of necessity, but of free will. (WEB (R)) But I was willing to do nothing without your consent, that your goodness would not be as of necessity, but of free will. (Wuest's) Georgia;;14-16 But I came to a decision in my heart to do nothing without your consent, in order that your goodness might not be as it were by compulsion but of your own free will. (NASB77) 14 but without your consent I did not want to do anything, that your goodness should not be as it were by compulsion, but of your own free will. (NASB95) 14 but without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will. (ERV) 14 but without thy mind I would do nothing; that thy goodness should not be as of necessity, but of free will. (NHEB) 14 But I was willing to do nothing without your consent, that your goodness would not be as of necessity, but of free will. (TCE) 14 but without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will. CT 14 but I would not do any thing without thy consent, that the benefit derived from thee might not be as it were forced, but of free will.NENT 14 but without thy: mind I wished to do nothing; that thy: goodness be not as of necessity, but of free will. SLT 14 But without thy judgment I would do nothing; that good might not be as according to necessity, but according to free will. (NEB) 14 But I would rather do nothing without your consent, so that your kindness may be a matter not of compulsion, but of your own free will. (REB) 14 But I would rather do nothing without your consent, so that your kindness may be a matter not of compulsion, but of your own free will. (EOB) 14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent: your goodness should not be forced, but of free will. |
Paul was not remotely claiming that his pulling rank and insisting philemon do the right thing would render it absolutely necessary. Again that would be absurd.
And it is only in this absolute sense of necessary would your argument work.
To be fair we all appeal to mystery at some point.
We can't explain how God's word exerts power. By what mechanism?
???I agree… but the part we do know, of a valid mystery, does not include logical fallacies.
If the 1% we do know includes a logical fallacy… revealing the other 99% does not still include the fallacy in the 100%.
Where is the logical fallacy in the part we do know? If there is not one then you are comparing apples to oranges.
Is it possible for God to create another non created God like himself?
Can it be accepted by simply calling it a “mystery” or “miracle”? No.
Why because it would be a logical fallacy, and no amount of new information revealed can change this. The other 99% would not include this fallacy.
Guess not?So if God determines something it is not necessary?
???
Is it possible for God to create another non created God like himself?
What has this contrary statementr to do with God creating man with a limited free will