The Mercy of the Lord Endureth Forever - Except for the Billions Burning in Hell for Eternity.

[brightfame52]

Would you serve a God who allowed free will?

What kind of foolish question is that ?

 

[GeneZ]

So then, it does not depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”

18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

You have gone through trials and testings? Did God spare you? Did it make you bitter and hardened of heart?

With another person? God can bring their way the same exact trials and testings. In their case? Under the exact same circumstances, they become bitter and stupidly cruel.... Should God have not produced such a person to be in this world?


Yes... God will not have his mind changed BY MAN"S DESIRE!

That does not mean the one whom God will judge does not warrant the judgment. It means that our desire for mercy on them will not influence God's decision because of our sentimentality. God knows all the facts. We do not.

A mother's son is a good boy to that mother. God does not listen to the desires of the mother whom her son is to be executed for murder.

 

[GeneZ]

You need to be careful what you say about the True God friend.

You still don't get it.... So be it.

 

[Our Lord's God]

17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.

Their only option is to sin. Even if they were to love their grand-babies, and rock them on their knees, that does not count as righteousness before God.

Show me the man in the flesh that pleases God....

So they had no choice.

 

[Manfred]

So they had no choice.

They chose to sin...... Not that difficult to understand is it?
Even when choosing to do something good, it id not pleasing to God. The dirty rags..... It really is not that difficult is it?

 

[armylngst]

It's a link to a POST not a thread. CARM improperly displays it.

I have no posts in that whole thread.

 

[armylngst]

Do you mean he chooses who will be saved? Or, what will be granted when they believe, and chooses when they are to be born accordingly? That way, some are Bride of Christ, and others Old testament saints?

The cross is not a point in time, though it occurred on Earth at a point in time. Jesus was/is God, and as such, the death on the cross breaks through time and into eternity. If Jesus were simply a man, He couldn't die for anyone but Himself.

 

[GeneZ]

The cross is not a point in time, though it occurred on Earth at a point in time. Jesus was/is God, and as such, the death on the cross breaks through time and into eternity. If Jesus were simply a man, He couldn't die for anyone but Himself.

Jesus is fully God and fully man. Two natures in union.

 

[Our Lord's God]

They chose to sin...... Not that difficult to understand is it?
Even when choosing to do something good, it id not pleasing to God. The dirty rags..... It really is not that difficult is it?

This may be a surprise to you but when you have no other options, it is not a choice.

 

[Manfred]

This may be a surprise to you but when you have no other options, it is not a choice.

You think you have a choice that pleases God. Your nature is to do NOTHING that pleases God

Of course you have a choice of what chocolate you want to buy.
When it comes to spiritual matters people who are not spiritual, cannot choose to do anything in the spiritual that would please God,
Not that difficult to understand.

Do you think your signature is pleasing to God?
Who is insisting that you should choose God? Who is this evil person you keep referring to?

Oh, wait, I forgot you do not know who your Lord's biological Father is.
Your Lord is also a man. Why do you call him Lord? What is he lord of in your life?

 

[Our Lord's God]

You think you have a choice that pleases God. Your nature is to do NOTHING that pleases God

Having no option is having no choice. You can't seem to get that through your head.

Of course you have a choice of what chocolate you want to buy.
When it comes to spiritual matters people who are not spiritual, cannot choose to do anything in the spiritual that would please God,
Not that difficult to understand.

Do you think your signature is pleasing to God?

Of course it is. It is also Biblical.

Who is insisting that you should choose God? Who is this evil person you keep referring to?

Oh, wait, I forgot you do not know who your Lord's biological Father is.
Your Lord is also a man. Why do you call him Lord? What is he lord of in your life?

You certainly know how to demonstrate that you have no absolutely no clue.

 

[His clay]

Having no option is having no choice. You can't seem to get that through your head.



Of course it is. It is also Biblical.



You certainly know how to demonstrate that you have no absolutely no clue.

It is you who has no clue. "Options" are temporally bound, objects of choice present to the mind of the person who is considering and weighing the pros and cons of a particular future decision. The fact that a choice has an ontological reason for it does not negate the fact that options exist. However, this does fly in the face of the false idea of libertarian freedom. It is the false idea of libertarian freedom that forces people's minds into believing that only an ontologically arbitrariness entails true options. This conflates the an imminent, time-bound, ignorant of the future consciousness (subjectivity) with objective realities.

Further, it is one thing to be held in prison with bars, chains, and a locked door. And the impossibility, lack of ability, that ensues is called physical inability. It is quite another to be free of bars and chains, with the prison door wide open; but now only the animosity and hatred for the king keeps the prisoner from leaving the prison. This is moral inability. The two are massively distinct, since the inability is caused by two different things. It is the assumption of libertarianism that ends up conflating the two, since both are destructive of the ontologically arbitrary definition of libertarian choice. However, in the illustration given above, the prisoner does have the option of choosing to repent of his crimes and to love the king. It is definitely an object of choice present to his mind. And it is a very real "possibility," since he is time-bound and does not know the future state of his decision. However, his hatred and animosity keeps him locked in prison just the same as if he were bound by bars and chains.

Having an ontological reason for a choice does not negate that a choice happens; it only provides a reason. Further, having an ontologically arbitrary choice only serves to destroy responsibility, since one is then grounding responsibility upon a chance act. It is by definition chance, since it is ontologically arbitrary. Some have tried to play it both ways by saying that the agent caused the choice. But this is an obvious failure, for if an agent "caused" the choice to be thus and not otherwise, then the choice can only be as the agent is at the moment of choice, and the ability to do otherwise is negated. Further, the Bible explicitly denies the idea of an ontologically arbitrary agent or the idea of an ontologically arbitrary choice/will. The fact that people, in their consciousness, deliberate and waffle before a choice is made does not change the fact that when the choice is made, it cannot be otherwise than the one state the person is in at the moment of choice. This is such on the basis of the law of identity, which is the foundation of the law of non-contradiciton.

 

[Our Lord's God]

It is you who has no clue. "Options" are temporally bound, objects of choice present to the mind of the person who is considering and weighing the pros and cons of a particular decision. The fact that a choice has an ontological reason for it does not negate the fact that options exist. However, this does fly in the face of the false idea of libertarian freedom. It is the false idea of libertarian freedom that forces people's minds into believing that only an ontologically arbitrariness entails true options. This conflates the an imminent, time-bound consciousness with transcendent realities.

If God decreed for a sin to be committed, do you have the option not to commit it?

Further, it is one thing to be held in prison with bars, chains, and a locked door. And the impossibility, lack of ability, that ensues is called physical inability. It is quite another to be free of bars and chains, with the prison door wide open; but now only the animosity and hatred for the king keeps the prisoner from leaving the prison. This is moral inability. The two are massively distinct, since the inability is caused by two different things. It is the assumption of libertarianism that ends up conflating the two, since both are destructive of the ontologically arbitrary definition of libertarian choice. However, in the illustration given above, the prisoner does have the option of choosing to repent of his crimes and to love the king. It is definitely an object of choice present to his mind. And it is a very real "possibility," since he is time-bound and does not know the future state of his decision. However, his hatred and animosity keeps him locked in prison just the same as if he were bound by bars and chains.

So all men bound in sin have the option to repent.

Or, all men may repent but it won't do any good for some men?

Which is it?

Having an ontological reason for a choice does not negate that a choice happens; it only provides a reason. Further, having an ontologically arbitrary choice only serves to destroy responsibility, since one is then grounding responsibility upon a chance act. It is by definition chance, since it is ontologically arbitrary. Some have tried to play it both ways by saying that the agent caused the choice. But this is an obvious failure, for if an agent "caused" the choice to be thus and not otherwise, then the choice can only be as the agent is at the moment of choice, and the ability to do otherwise is negated. Further, the Bible explicitly denies the idea of an ontologically arbitrary agent or the idea of an ontologically arbitrary choice/will. The fact that people, in their consciousness, deliberate and waffle before a choice is made does not change the fact that when the choice is made, it cannot be otherwise than the one state the person is in at the moment of choice. This is such on the basis of the law of identity, which is the foundation of the law of non-contradiciton.

You actually thought all that made sense didn't you?

 

[His clay]

If God decreed for a sin to be committed, do you have the option not to commit it?



So all men bound in sin have the option to repent.

Or, all men may repent but it won't do any good for some men?

Which is it?



You actually thought all that made sense didn't you?

As I have defined it, yes. The decree makes it certain you have a future object of choice present to your mind. Note, my definition of "option" is a subjective, time-bound perception of a person yet to make a choice.

Yes, all men bound in sin who are presented with their need to repent have the option to repent (like the prisoner in the illustration in the prior post), since they have the future object of choice present to their minds. It really may help if you not ask questions I have already answered. Try reading my prior post again.

The comment, "Or, all men may repent but it won't do any good for some men?" seems rather ill defined. Please explain your question better. I'd rather not have to make guesses as to your meaning, only to find out that my guesses were not what you intended. A lot hangs on your use of "may" and its meaning. However, if a person repents of his sin and turns to Jesus in faith for salvation, then it will, by Biblical definition, do a ton of good.

"You actually thought all that made sense didn't you?" Given your inability to actually interact with the content of my last post, I think that you are clearly struggling with realities that go beyond your own assumptions and ideas. Try not to assume that your own failure is a limitation for others. What I wrote makes perfect sense, and it addresses your mistaken idea of choice and option.

Let's take small steps. My comment here, "Having an ontological reason for a choice does not negate that a choice happens; it only provides a reason." What do you think of it? How are you evaluating it?

 

[brightfame52]

You think you have a choice that pleases God. Your nature is to do NOTHING that pleases God

Of course you have a choice of what chocolate you want to buy.
When it comes to spiritual matters people who are not spiritual, cannot choose to do anything in the spiritual that would please God,
Not that difficult to understand.

Do you think your signature is pleasing to God?
Who is insisting that you should choose God? Who is this evil person you keep referring to?

Oh, wait, I forgot you do not know who your Lord's biological Father is.
Your Lord is also a man. Why do you call him Lord? What is he lord of in your life?

Amen Rom 8:8

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

 

[His clay]

If God decreed for a sin to be committed, do you have the option not to commit it?



So all men bound in sin have the option to repent.

Or, all men may repent but it won't do any good for some men?

Which is it?



You actually thought all that made sense didn't you?

"You actually thought all that made sense didn't you?" If you would like for me to explain it better, then I would be happy to. What exactly did you not understand?

 

[GeneZ]

"You actually thought all that made sense didn't you?" If you would like for me to explain it better, then I would be happy to. What exactly did you not understand?

Decree does not mean God made something to happen. Decree means God knowing all things that could happen, determined what would actually take place at a point in time. He took what we would decide and made it so to be.

 

[His clay]

Decree does not mean God made something to happen. Decree means God knowing all things that could happen, determined what would actually take place at a point in time. He took what we would decide and made it so to be.

Interesting, you are saying both that "Decree does not mean God made something to happen," and "determined what would actually take place at a point in time." Those two parts of your explanation seem to be at odds.

Further, how can God take a decision already made and make it so to be? Isn't it already being because we decided it? Why make it so to be if we already made it so to be with our decision?

 

[GeneZ]

Interesting, you are saying both that "Decree does not mean God made something to happen," and "determined what would actually take place at a point in time." Those two parts of your explanation seem to be at odds.

Further, how can God take a decision already made and make it so to be? Isn't it already being because we decided it? Why make it so to be if we already made it so to be with our decision?

For example...

God could have given you unlimited choices for a situation by stopping you and allowing you to keep choosing again and again. Instead, He decreed what you would choose anyway. He does not make you choose. He just makes it manifested as how you will choose to in a point in time.
What he also decrees is allowing us to choose wrong when we are so inclined. He does not erase it by not allowing it to happen.

 

[His clay]

For example...

God could have given you unlimited choices for a situation by stopping you and allowing you to keep choosing again and again. Instead, He decreed what you would choose anyway. He does not make you choose. He just makes it manifested as how you will choose to in a point in time.
What he also decrees is allowing us to choose wrong when we are so inclined. He does not erase it by not allowing it to happen.

Thank you for your answer. Your answer is differently worded than what I am used to, so I'm a bit unsure as to how to read it. I will continue to read it, and maybe I'll understand it a bit better.

I'll try to reword your comments. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding your position.

First, I see a contrast being made. The word, "Instead," in the middle is giving this away. I think that the contrast is between God giving a person unlimited choices in a given situation vs God decreeing what a person chooses. Honestly, this kind of contrast sounds odd to me. That isn't any kind of argument against your view. I'm just saying that this sounds strange to me. However, I'll still keep trying to follow what you are saying. I've been guilty of not saying things very clearly at times, so I need to be gracious when I think that I see someone doing the same.

Second, I can see your use of the word, "also," in your second to last sentence. This indicates to me a second aspect of God's decreeing. I think that you are saying that God decrees not to interfere with our bad/wrong choices. If you don't mind I'll use a little illustration. My nephew, a while back, was playing in a plastic storage tub type of container. He enjoyed getting out and then getting back in the container. The problem was that he often placed his full weight on the edge of the container. I immediately saw this a few times, and I helped him get out of the tub safely by stabilizing the tub. However, I thought that at some point he will have to learn that putting your full weight on the edge is a bad idea, for a fall will result. Maybe what you are saying is akin to allowing the nephew to fall flat on his face (without interfering) to teach the little one through personal experience that his idea and decision was bad.

Third, after your contrast, I think that you are trying to explain the contrast better. You said that "He decreed what you would choose," but then follow up with the qualifier, "He does not make you choose." I think that you are addressing the issue of force and that your meaning is closer to the line of "He does not force you to choose." However, you might be wanting to be more general than the coercive idea allows. Then you say that "He just makes it manifested as how you will choose to in a point in time." The best that I can relate to this is more like a crystal ball viewing where He your future choice appears in the ball or is made manifest in the ball before it happens.

I hope that you don't mind my rambling, but I'm really trying to understand what you are trying to say. If I am close, then we are probably in disagreement to some degree, but I will save my criticism for after properly understanding your view.