brightfame52
Well-known member
What kind of foolish question is that ?Would you serve a God who allowed free will?
What kind of foolish question is that ?Would you serve a God who allowed free will?
18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
You still don't get it.... So be it.You need to be careful what you say about the True God friend.
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....
They chose to sin...... Not that difficult to understand is it?So they had no choice.
I have no posts in that whole thread.It's a link to a POST not a thread. CARM improperly displays it.
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.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?
Jesus is fully God and fully man. Two natures in union.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.
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?
You think you have a choice that pleases God. Your nature is to do NOTHING that pleases GodThis 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?
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.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 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.
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.
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.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?
Amen Rom 8:8You 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?
"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?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?
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."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?
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.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?
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.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.