Free Will Meticulously Examined… and Refuted!

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
You are suggesting that "within those boundaries" your will can "operate" by a power other than God...

Dualism = 2+ Ultimate powers at work in the universe = Heresy.

Timestamps...
0:03:22 Properly defining "freewill"
0:06:36 Foundational verses
00:11:40 Addressing Deiesm heresy

You're trying to confine my response to what you want to get out of our conversation. That will not work with me. You will not limit my response to only the way you want me to answer.

I'll ask again.

What you believe removes the very idea of a gift. It destroys the meaning of words like innate, intrinsic and imparting.

God empowers others to operate of their own freewill within boundaries.

NO. There is no power GREATER than His power. This doesn't mean that God is directly involved in every single aspect of everything.

I ask that you tell me the REAL meaning of innate, intrinsic, imparting and gift if what you say is true.
 

Sketo

Well-known member
What you believe removes the very idea of a gift. It destroys the meaning of words like innate, intrinsic and imparting.

What “gift” are you suggesting if not the “gift” of semi-Deistic Dualism?

God empowers others to operate of their own freewill within boundaries.

Again you are suggesting semi-Deism that God “gifts” creatures with “power” to “operate” as a separate power other than God.

NO. There is no power GREATER than His power. This doesn't mean that God is directly involved in every single aspect of everything.

No one said anything about a “GREATER” power than God.

You are suggesting a power “OTHER THAN” God!

Timestamps that specifically refute your claim that God “empowers”…

00:32:28 Misconceptions (semi-Deism)
00:36:21 Misunderstanding (God's involvement in creation)
00:41:54 Transcendent Author explained
00:47:11 Foundation question
00:52:12 Omni-atributes addressed
00:55:24 "Omnipotence" specifically
00:58:29 God can not "give" freedom
01:11:11 Meticulous Control or Duelism
01:13:00 Direct and Indirect causes addressed
 

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
What “gift” are you suggesting if not the “gift” of semi-Deistic Dualism?



Again you are suggesting semi-Deism that God “gifts” creatures with “power” to “operate” as a separate power other than God.



No one said anything about a “GREATER” power than God.

You are suggesting a power “OTHER THAN” God!

Timestamps that specifically refute your claim that God “empowers”…

00:32:28 Misconceptions (semi-Deism)
00:36:21 Misunderstanding (God's involvement in creation)
00:41:54 Transcendent Author explained
00:47:11 Foundation question
00:52:12 Omni-atributes addressed
00:55:24 "Omnipotence" specifically
00:58:29 God can not "give" freedom
01:11:11 Meticulous Control or Duelism
01:13:00 Direct and Indirect causes addressed

What does innate, intrinsic and impart mean?

A gift is just that. A gift. A gift en-powers the receiver. To say anything else is contrary to fact and common sense.

No. There is no greater power than God. That makes God Sovereign over His creation. You do not understand Dualism. I'm not teaching that another creature is Sovereign. That is ridiculous.
 

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
In fact. The Scriptures talk of POWERS. Plural....

All those powers are subject to our Sovereign God.

Col 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
 
T

TomFL

Guest
They totally disprove your assumption that mans will can function by a Power other than God.

Mans "will" is not "free" to function by a Power other than God.

Semi-Deistic Dualism is Heresy...



Are you suggesting there is another ULTIMATE Power, other than God, at work in the universe?

Dont you know that your Dualism is heresy...

Comment deleted for personal attack

Hello that is not dualism

Apparently you lack understanding of what you speak of

Do you ever address the scriptures ?

Not one of those verses disproves free will

Not one makes God the cause for the lusts, sinful thoughts and deeds of men

so why is it you cannot address these verses

James 1:13-14 (KJV)
13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

God didn't do it

Scripture states it was man's own lusts which caused the temptation

1 Corinthians 10:13 (KJV)
13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

If God determined your sin then this verse is false

1 John 2:16 (KJV)
16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

God stated these things are not from him but from the world

You contradict the word of God

Jeremiah 19:5 (ESV)
5 and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind—

God stated he was not the cause of this

Maybe you should forget your gnostic - manichean philosophy and believe God
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Reformedguy

Well-known member
They totally disprove your assumption that mans will can function by a Power other than God.

Mans "will" is not "free" to function by a Power other than God.

Semi-Deistic Dualism is Heresy...



Are you suggesting there is another ULTIMATE Power, other than God, at work in the universe?

Dont you know that your Dualism is heresy...
Great job. He does not listen and is hardly worth your time
 
T

TomFL

Guest
Great job. He does not listen and is hardly worth your time
Apparently both of you are ignorant as to what heretical dualism is

Man was not an independent source apart from God but rather a creation of God

and given his power of will by God

And I don't listen to yours or his error
 

Reformedguy

Well-known member
Apparently both of you are ignorant as to what heretical dualism is

Man was not an independent source apart from God but rather a creation of God

and given his power of will by God

And I don't listen to yours or his error
So your faith does not come from outside of God? Nor you will?
 

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
So are you saying all men are born with faith ?

I believe he is saying that all men are capable of having faith. I tend to agree with this statement. However, I will say there are circumstances that are not conducive to faith.

This an example of where I often end up in the middle between positions.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
It is implied.

Heretics always claim their doctrines are "implied" when they're absent from Scripture.
Sorry, but you are ASSUMING your doctrines, and that's not the same as "implied".

The word "should seek" or ζητέω implies that God's intent was a variable imparted to His creation.

"should seek" speaks to OBLIGATION, not to "ability".
They are not the same thing.
 

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
Heretics always claim their doctrines are "implied" when they're absent from Scripture.

I'm not a heretic. Did you intend your implication? Even as you seek to dismiss "implication", you use it yourself. This is called being "hypocritical".

Sorry, but you are ASSUMING your doctrines, and that's not the same as "implied".

I'm not assuming anything. I know what the words mean. I believe what those words mean.

"should seek" speaks to OBLIGATION, not to "ability".
They are not the same thing.

I agree that this should be considered. However, this is the only valid argument to be found in how you responded.

You can have both OBLIGATION and ABILITY impiled. Which is what you find here.

You find the ease of "ABILITY" later in the verse....

"though he be not far from every one of us".
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I'm not a heretic. Did you intend your implication?

I never called you a heretic.
If you take on that identify for yourself, that's on you.

Even as you seek to dismiss "implication", you use it yourself. This is called being "hypocritical".

I respectfully disagree.
"Free will" is NOWHERE "implied" in your verse.

I'm not assuming anything. I know what the words mean. I believe what those words mean.

Show me the words, "free will" then.
I can show you the word "heretics" in my post.

You can have both OBLIGATION and ABILITY impiled. Which is what you find here.

I see... So I'm supposed to blindly believe free will is "implied", because YOU CLAIM it is.
Sorry, not convinced.

You find the ease of "ABILITY" later in the verse....

"though he be not far from every one of us".

Where does that imply "ability"?
Freedom is "close" to lions in the zoo.
Does that mean they have the "ability" to free themselves?
Of course not.
 
Top