FreeGrace2 said:
The one that you used to choose to post what you posted.
Of course God provides the options. He provided the option to eat the forbidden fruit. So what is your point?
The FACT remains that free will is ONLY the opportunity to choose between what is available. Like what color to choose for the day, what cereal to eat for breakfast, to be filled with the Spirit, or to grieve/quench the Spirit. These are probably not intentional choices, but what we do will result in whether we are filled with or grieving/quenching the Spirit.
Since you disagree with my definition, you need to explain how it doesn't work.
Just because God is the ultimate provider of options doesn't support the calvinist view in any way. Man STILL has options.
The Bible is clear to whom He does that; those who are NOT listening, NOT paying attention.
This is an unbiblical statement. 1 Tim 2:3-6 says otherwise:
3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior,
4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,
6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.
This couldn't be more clear.
The one that you used to choose to post what you posted.
Of course God provides the options. He provided the option to eat the forbidden fruit. So what is your point?
The FACT remains that free will is ONLY the opportunity to choose between what is available. Like what color to choose for the day, what cereal to eat for breakfast, to be filled with the Spirit, or to grieve/quench the Spirit. These are probably not intentional choices, but what we do will result in whether we are filled with or grieving/quenching the Spirit.
Since you disagree with my definition, you need to explain how it doesn't work.
Just because God is the ultimate provider of options doesn't support the calvinist view in any way. Man STILL has options.
The Bible is clear to whom He does that; those who are NOT listening, NOT paying attention.
This is an unbiblical statement. 1 Tim 2:3-6 says otherwise:
3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior,
4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,
6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.
This couldn't be more clear.
If we had freewill we could say "ok God I refuse to accept any of Your options, I will do my own thing"
Reading 1 Timothy we see that God would have us to pray for kings and all who are in authority
We are not to assume that kings and rulers are our enemies and therefore out of God's reach, God does not pay regard to rank, whether a man is great or small, rich or poor etc we are to pray for all ranks and sorts of men for God would have all men [all sorts of men] to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.
The words in Parenthesis are of course my thoughts.
But when did God ever will that any should be lost? or that any should rebel against Him and become His enemy? I am no believer in Calvin's doctrine of predestination unto damnation by default. Nor do I aspire to any notion of a limited atonement. Such doctrines are abhorrent to me. Yet I believe in bible predestination and election.
Moreover I am not one who believes just a few shrivelled souls will be saved but the great mass of humankind damned. I believe God's mercy will be much wider than evangelicalism teaches.
It is not God's will to save the wicked man who is determined to cleave to his wicked ways
- 1
- Show all