eternomade
Well-known member
Therefore thus saith the Lord , Behold, I will bring evil upon them, which they shall not be able to escape; and though they shall cry unto me, I will not hearken unto them.
Jeremiah 11:11 KJV
Jeremiah 11:11 KJV
CorrectNope, God bragged to Satan how Job hated evil and God gave Satan permission to test Job. God did no evil to anyone you’re blaming God for what satan did.
Boys and pieces does not the truth convey. God used a foreign army to judge them because of their rebellion and sin.Therefore thus saith the Lord , Behold, I will bring evil upon them, which they shall not be able to escape; and though they shall cry unto me, I will not hearken unto them.
Jeremiah 11:11 KJV
I can go all day with this. I'm trying to show you that you don't actually believe man has free will. If man has free will God doesn't.Boys and pieces does not the truth convey. God used a foreign army to judge them because of their rebellion and sin.
So evil has no purpose then? It's some sort of creative opps?God is the cause of everything that comes in Calvinism as per the WFC including evil. A biblical oxymoron
next
God doesn't? Why?I can go all day with this. I'm trying to show you that you don't actually believe man has free will. If man has free will God doesn't.
You're confused by quoting this verse in support of MAN not having free will. Having free will does not mean you get away with what you decide. Or to get your way in what you decide. And you don't get to choose the consequences of your actions. No one who believes in free will believes that either.And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses: they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that he appointeth over it whomsoever he will.
Daniel 5:21 KJV
You've missed the forest for the trees.God doesn't? Why?
You're confused by quoting this verse in support of MAN not having free will. Having free will does not mean you get away with what you decide. Or to get your way in what you decide. And you don't get to choose the consequences of your actions. No one who believes in free will believes that either.
If man has free will then man is God.God doesn't? Why?
Then why do you believe mans decision causes salvation? I thought you claimed that man has free will in Salvation.You're confused by quoting this verse in support of MAN not having free will. Having free will does not mean you get away with what you decide. Or to get your way in what you decide. And you don't get to choose the consequences of your actions. No one who believes in free will believes that either.
Bingo spot on once again .God doesn't? Why?
You're confused by quoting this verse in support of MAN not having free will. Having free will does not mean you get away with what you decide. Or to get your way in what you decide. And you don't get to choose the consequences of your actions. No one who believes in free will believes that either.
I'm curious what you think this means since you post it so much, so I looked up the Greek "tempted".Scripture says God cannot be tempted to commit evil neither tempts He any manJas 1:13 - 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:
Here we go again redefining words to fit an unbiblical doctrine.I'm curious what you think this means since you post it so much, so I looked up the Greek "tempted".
tempt = peirazo = endeavor scrutinize entice discipline examine prove tempt try.
A wide range of meanings for sure but I thought "scrutinize" was interesting and higher on the list than "tempt" anyway.'
If the English "scrutinize" were used for peirazo it would make a fantastic Calvinist proof text. The whole free will doctrine is centered around God scrutinizing or "examining" a person's "belief".
Therefore you admit you've been wrong this whole time about God's "wrath" and would like to apologize?God used a foreign army to judge them because of their rebellion and sin.
Can't really call it (re)defining since it comes from Strong's. After all, Strong's is much older than any of us.Here we go again redefining words to fit an unbiblical doctrine.
Therefore you admit you've been wrong this whole time about God's "wrath" and would like to apologize?
Only in your mind have I admitted anything. God using a foreign army to punish those that rebelled and sinned against him is NOT God committing evil even though you have been brain washed into not understanding the difference.Therefore you admit you've been wrong this whole time about God's "wrath" and would like to apologize?
Your buddies say it’s obsolete rofl every time I use it and ThayersCan't really call it (re)defining since it comes from Strong's. After all, Strong's is much older than any of us.
Are lexicons allowed into the debate?
I'm curious, did God tempt (peirazo) the army to do it?Only in your mind have I admitted anything. God using a foreign army to punish those that rebelled and sinned against him is NOT God committing evil even though you have been brain washed into not understanding the difference.
Immaterial God punished rebellion and sin. You cannot convince me that God commits evil or tempts men to commit evil just as scripture says.I'm curious, did God tempt (peirazo) the army to do it?
Yes deflecting againImmaterial God punished rebellion and sin. You cannot convince me that God commits evil or tempts men to commit evil just as scripture says.
Correct, it's old, which eliminates the (re) in your "redefine" claim.Your buddies say it’s obsolete rofl every time I use it and Thayers
next