Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

[Cameron143]

Aaahhhh yea, the parables were long drawn out metaphorical missives meant as PROOFS of DEEP underlying spiritual realities.

PROOFS of what really is true about God and how He deals with men.

In fact, Jesus taught in parables to make complicated things easy to understand a little at a time.

 

[HeIsHere]

Nothing about regeneration in the story. Your mathematical skills are coming through.

The reason Jesus told so many parables is because some subjects are complex and Jesus breaks down the doctrines into bite sized morsels. Every story doesn't tell the whole story, but every lesson does add to our understanding. That's how you should be mathing.

So Jesus had to use half-truths.. the regeneration before belief comes later when they were ready.

Awesome mathing, never learned that in math class, I can work half the problem, only the left part of the equation and still get the right answer.

Who knew, maybe @cv5 can shed some light, I believe he has an engineering background?

 

[Cameron143]

So Jesus had to use half-truths.. the regeneration before belief comes later when they were ready.

Awesome mathing, never learned that in math class, I can work half the problem, only the left part of the equation and still get the right answer.

Who knew, maybe @cv5 can shed some light, I believe he has an engineering background?

Are you purposefully being daft? Just because one story doesn't give the whole picture doesn't mean scripture doesn't.

 

[HeIsHere]

Accuse and condemn the free willers for the very things that the super-determinists believe and promote?

That is the crux of it.

 

[GWH]

Is that the desperation play now?
Accuse and condemn the free willers for the very things that the super-determinists believe and promote?

That's it? That is where you are going?
I have to say.........you and your ilk have hit rock bottom.

Yes, that is called projection and has been part of their play from the beginning--
a rather Marxist ploy!

 

[Cameron143]

Yes, that is called projection and has been part of their play from the beginning--
a rather Marxist ploy!

So...you call people Marxist, pot, anal, and unable to drink in God's word, but are frustrated by the lack of unity?

 

[Magenta]

Are you purposefully being daft? Just because one story doesn't give the whole picture doesn't mean scripture doesn't.

What she fails to grasp is that salvation is according to God's will and desire and foreknowledge and mercy... And His great everlasting love for us. Somehow in their theology, that gets translated into being or making God an unjust tyrannical monster kidnapping people against their will. According to her He is so unfair! And despite all the verses that expose the fact that divine revelation is necessary, she will still deny it.

 

[GWH]

So...you call people Marxist, pot, anal, and unable to drink in God's word, but are frustrated by the lack of unity?

Well, is that better than calling them Satan, as Jesus did?

But to address your accusation point by point:

Projection is what tulipists employ and it is a Marxist tactic, and stating truth is unifying.
Pot refers to the proverbial "the pot calling the kettle black", which is what you did, so it is a true/unifying reproof.
Anal was in the category of "if the shoe fits", so if it doesn't fit, I apologize for reproving wrongly.
Ditto with the reference to the proverbial "you can lead a horse to water...".

Can we exercise reproof rightly?
Yes, but it is not always simple or well-received.

 

[HeIsHere]

Are you purposefully being daft? Just because one story doesn't give the whole picture doesn't mean scripture doesn't.

The whole idea is preposterous, that this parable is showcasing inability.

Physical inability does not equate to moral inability to respond positively to the good news.
The most flawed analogy of all!

You make Christ Jesus very disingenuous, He easily could have created a story about moral inability to believe the Gospel if that was His purpose.

At the end He even asks..
“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

This is really grasping at straws to add this eisgesis onto the story.

 

[Cameron143]

Well, is that better than calling them Satan, as Jesus did?

But to address your accusation point by point:

Projection is what tulipists employ and it is a Marxist tactic, and stating truth is unifying.
Pot refers to the proverbial "the pot calling the kettle black", which is what you did, so it is a true/unifying reproof.
Anal was in the category of "if the shoe fits", so if it doesn't fit, I apologize for reproving wrongly.
Ditto with the reference to the proverbial "you can lead a horse to water...".

Can we exercise reproof rightly?
Yes, but it is not always simple or well-received.

You promote unity with your words, but then use words to cause disunity. And you can't see what is obvious to everyone else. You lack self awareness.

 

[Cameron143]

The whole idea is preposterous, that this parable is showcasing inability.

Physical inability does not equate to moral inability to respond positively to the good news.
The most flawed analogy of all!

You make Christ Jesus very disingenuous, He easily could have created a story about moral inability to believe the Gospel if that was His purpose.

At the end He even asks..
“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

This is really grasping at straws to add this eisgesis onto the story.

I already said the parable isn't showcasing inability. That doesn't mean it doesn't reflect inability. It very accurately depicts the man as helpless and unable to self provide his necessary care. I suppose this is inadvertent on Jesus' part?

 

[HeIsHere]

You promote unity with your words, but then use words to cause disunity. And you can't see what is obvious to everyone else. You lack self awareness.

I see no reason to unite with the doctrine of TULIP if that is what you mean.

 

[HeIsHere]

I already said the parable isn't showcasing inability. That doesn't mean it doesn't reflect inability. It very accurately depicts the man as helpless and unable to self provide his necessary care. I suppose this is inadvertent on Jesus' part?

Unable to redeem oneself is distinct from receiving the redemption, this is where you err.
He received the care, there is nothing to indicate otherwise.

 

[Cameron143]

I see no reason to unite with the doctrine of TULIP if that is what you mean.

I didn't go beyond what was there. You introduced inability, not me. But clearly the man is unable to meet his own need.

 

[Magenta]

Unable to redeem oneself is distinct from receiving the redemption, this is where you err.
He received the care, there is nothing to indicate otherwise.

The free will claim has unregenerated man receiving what Scripture says he cannot.

 

[Cameron143]

Unable to redeem oneself is distinct from receiving the redemption, this is where you err.
He received the care, there is nothing to indicate otherwise.

He did receive care. He didn't self medicate.

 

[GWH]

You promote unity with your words, but then use words to cause disunity. And you can't see what is obvious to everyone else. You lack self awareness.

I guess reproving is not one of my gifts, so please reword my attempts you cited as objectionable
in a way you find acceptable. Thanks.

 

[HeIsHere]

I didn't go beyond what was there. You introduced inability, not me. But clearly the man is unable to meet his own need.

LOL.. brought up to counter @cv5 analogy.

So we are back peddling to the obvious, okay.

 

[HeIsHere]

He did receive care. He didn't self medicate.

Yup just like people can receive, not only refuse without unique divine intervention, the Good News and the gift of salvation.

 

[Magenta]

Romans 8 verse 7 plainly speaks of man's inability but no doubt they will deny that also.