Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

[Magenta]

Hmmm...it seems God must give a heart that leads to fear of Him. That can't be right.

It certainly cannot right in the eyes of FWers who despise God's sovereignty and elevate the will of man.

Especially those who claim God does not act unilaterally in matters of salvation.

You know the ones, yammering on about what an unjust tyrannical monster God would be if if He did...

Deuteronomy 30 v 6~ The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love Him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.

 

[Cameron143]

It certainly cannot right in the eyes of FWers who despise God's sovereignty and elevate the will of man.

Especially those who claim God does not act unilaterally in matters of salvation.

You know the ones, yammering on about what an unjust tyrannical monster God would be if if He did...

Deuteronomy 30 v 6~ The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love Him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.

You mean God told them ahead of time that He was going to do things for people who are yet to be born? And without asking if it would be okay?

 

[Magenta]

You mean God told them ahead of time that He was going to do things for people who are yet to be born? And without asking if it would be okay?

Out of His great undying love, God does what is necessary to assure the salvation of His people, and people complain.

It really comes across as there is simply no pleasing them. But I have commented on their propensity
to self contradiction before. It really does seem built in to their erroneous theology. And of course we
know they not only contradict themselves, but Scripture, and in a very majorly way. Quite sad indeed.

 

[sawdust]

But Rom 9 says that salvation doesn't depend on man's will or man's efforts.

That is true, it depends on God's decision to save believers. It's no effort to believe the truth when presented, just a willing heart.

 

[cv5]

You mean God told them ahead of time that He was going to do things for people who are yet to be born? And without asking if it would be okay?

So you DO believe that this....."pre-birth sovereign lottery" is God's doctrinal mandate. In spite of your earlier "slithery" denials.

As does your colleague @Magenta with whom you concur on most if not all matters of doctrine. Right little buddy?

 

[Cameron143]

So you DO believe that this....."pre-birth sovereign lottery" is God's doctrinal mandate. In spite of your earlier "slithery" denials.

As does your colleague @Magenta with whom you concur on most if not all matters of doctrine. Right little buddy?

I believe God chose a people to Himself in Christ before the foundation of the world. It's not a lottery. God never chooses out of a group of people. That would be selection. Instead, God elects. He chooses a people, and then creates them. Just like He did when He created Israel out of Abraham's progeny. He promised Abraham that He would make a great nation from him, and then He did it.

 

[posthuman]

8639. tardemah ►
Lexical Summary
tardemah: Deep sleep, trance

Original Word: תַּרְדֵּמָה
Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
Transliteration: tardemah
Pronunciation: tar-day-maw'
Phonetic Spelling: (tar-day-maw')
KJV: deep sleep
NASB: deep sleep, sound sleep
Word Origin: [from H7290 (רָדַם - To sleep deeply)]

1. a lethargy
2. (by implication) trance
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
deep sleep
From radam; a lethargy or (by implication) trance -- deep sleep.
see HEBREW radam


Genesis 2:21
HEB: עַל־ הָאָדָ֖ם וַיִּישָׁ֑ן וַיִּקַּ֗ח אַחַת֙
NAS: upon the man, and he slept; then He took
KJV: upon Adam, and he slept: and he took
INT: upon the man slept took one

but how does Jesus use the word?

 

[posthuman]

So you DO believe that this....."pre-birth sovereign lottery" is God's doctrinal mandate. In spite of your earlier "slithery" denials.

As does your colleague @Magenta with whom you concur on most if not all matters of doctrine. Right little buddy?

lottery indicates randomness, but the scripture says, the lot cast in the lap, it's every turning is of the LORD - - to Him, not random.

and He does use the word, election. that indicates purpose, on the part of Him Who has the only 'vote' that counts





the reformed baby should not be thrown out with the hypercalvinist bathwater. imo.
hyoercalvinism isn't true, but neither is pelagianism.

in this thread, i think, mostly we argue because we presume extremes that we don't mean to imply.

 

[posthuman]

lottery indicates randomness, but the scripture says, the lot cast in the lap, it's every turning is of the LORD - - to Him, not random.

and He does use the word, election. that indicates purpose, on the part of Him Who has the only 'vote' that counts





the reformed baby should not be thrown out with the hypercalvinist bathwater. imo.
hyoercalvinism isn't true, but neither is pelagianism.

in this thread, i think, mostly we argue because we presume extremes that we don't mean to imply.

normally i say, things are tested at extremes. but for the thread topic i am not sure we have precise enough language to carry ideas to their extremes - - hence all the obvious error at the margins.

we are dealing with a mystery here

 

[posthuman]

Adam watched Eve die and then ate?

i don't believe he was present when she was tempted. and i don't believe he ate immediately when she came to him, after she had eaten. i believe he made a careful, wrong, decision, and some indeterminate amount of time passed between each step

 

[posthuman]

Nowhere is Jonah said to have slept while in the belly of the fish.

nah it was clear there. Jesus said, in the context of Lazarus, exasperated at the disciples inability to understand, that He was only frankly saying Lazarus had died because saying he was asleep flew right over their heads.

 

[posthuman]

nah it was clear there. Jesus said, in the context of Lazarus, exasperated at the disciples inability to understand, that He was only frankly saying Lazarus had died because saying he was asleep flew right over their heads.

@Magenta

Paul in another place also plainly said he was describing things in an human way of speaking because the reader was too dense to understand if he wrote purely spiritually - - how would Paul know that? And how would he know what is an human way of speaking vs. heavenly speech?



to me this makes it clear, that the scripture uses typological, allegoric descriptions - - particularly in the OT where the gospel was hidden. i know that the allegorical methodology of eisegesis is severely criticized, and i recognize the proclivity of falling into crazy error through it - - but imo ignoring it's presence is equally damaging, in that there are real, deep truths hidden in type and shadow all over scripture, and that He purposed it this way. my position is that the Bible is everywhere both literally true and has intentional, metaphorical truth simultaneously, on every page, that is designed to testify of Christ.

that is precisely why we Jae only snippets of history all over it - - we have 5he things that speak of Christ; all of what we have does this. and this is what the things written in Genesis 3-4 do. but they are buried, and take wisdom to dig out.

 

[Magenta]

nah it was clear there. Jesus said, in the context of Lazarus, exasperated at the disciples inability to understand, that He was only frankly saying Lazarus had died because saying he was asleep flew right over their heads.

Bro, you are all over the place and ignoring context. Why? So you can support your God-blaspheming buddy? Shameful.

 

[Magenta]

No religious teaching states that God killed Adam to make Eve; instead, the biblical creation story in Genesis describes God taking one of Adam's ribs while he was asleep to form the first woman, Eve. This account is part of the Judeo-Christian tradition's origin story for humanity, where Eve is presented as a suitable helper and counterpart to Adam. (from a general search.)

No religious tradition or teacher states that God killed Abraham to make a covenant with him; rather, the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 15 involved Abraham preparing animal sacrifices, after which a divine, solitary presence (described as a "smoking fire pot and a flaming torch") passed between the cut pieces, symbolizing God's binding promise to Abraham. This ceremony, unique to this covenant, demonstrated that God was solely responsible for the covenant's fulfillment, ensuring its unconditional nature. (from a general search.)

The Abrahamic Covenant is an unconditional covenant. The actual covenant is found in Genesis 12:1–3. The ceremony recorded in Genesis 15 indicates the unconditional nature of the covenant. When a covenant was dependent upon both parties keeping commitments, then both parties would pass between the pieces of animals. In Genesis 15, God alone moves between the halves of the animals. Abraham was in a deep sleep. (from GQ.)

There are no levels of death. Both Adam and Abraham are said to have been in a deep sleep. Sleep has levels.

 

[Genez]

but how does Jesus use the word?

So? You are admitting it can be used in more than one way.

Being contrary, and enjoying the reactions it causes, is a choice some make.

 

[cv5]

lottery indicates randomness, but the scripture says, the lot cast in the lap, it's every turning is of the LORD - - to Him, not random.

and He does use the word, election. that indicates purpose, on the part of Him Who has the only 'vote' that counts





the reformed baby should not be thrown out with the hypercalvinist bathwater. imo.
hyoercalvinism isn't true, but neither is pelagianism.

in this thread, i think, mostly we argue because we presume extremes that we don't mean to imply.

That is not my point. The fact is that God is not "pre-selecting" anybody (willing or not) for salvation in some kind of pre-birth scenario. Period. Children are by DEFAULT saved, yes, but even this occurs post physical birth.

The hyper-Calvinists on the other hand demand that EVERY saved individual was "pre-selected", without informed consent, knowledge of any truth or fact, understanding of same, or even nominal consciousness.

Furthermore, for the entrenched super-determinist, it is axiomatic that the Gospel message is relegated to merely a trivial artifact, merely incidental to the brutal underlying "kidnapping of the will and shotgun wedding" salvation scenario.

Yea.....Chronister is 100% on point in this regard. In fact, I am listening to him now! Like right now.
And yes, those Calvinists who declare that God is ultimately the source and origin of all sin and evil will inevitably see the judgement of their grave error.

And somebody please tell these poor Calvinists that the "remember Lots wife/ pillar of salt" entry in the Biblical record is in fact the sign of the rapture of the Church to "end time" nation Israel, who will indeed recognize it for what it is. Because they have no clue.

 

[cv5]

No religious teaching states that God killed Adam to make Eve; instead, the biblical creation story in Genesis describes God taking one of Adam's ribs while he was asleep to form the first woman, Eve. This account is part of the Judeo-Christian tradition's origin story for humanity, where Eve is presented as a suitable helper and counterpart to Adam. (from a general search.)

No religious tradition or teacher states that God killed Abraham to make a covenant with him; rather, the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 15 involved Abraham preparing animal sacrifices, after which a divine, solitary presence (described as a "smoking fire pot and a flaming torch") passed between the cut pieces, symbolizing God's binding promise to Abraham. This ceremony, unique to this covenant, demonstrated that God was solely responsible for the covenant's fulfillment, ensuring its unconditional nature. (from a general search.)

The Abrahamic Covenant is an unconditional covenant. The actual covenant is found in Genesis 12:1–3. The ceremony recorded in Genesis 15 indicates the unconditional nature of the covenant. When a covenant was dependent upon both parties keeping commitments, then both parties would pass between the pieces of animals. In Genesis 15, God alone moves between the halves of the animals. Abraham was in a deep sleep. (from GQ.)

There are no levels of death. Both Adam and Abraham are said to have been in a deep sleep. Sleep has levels.

"Genesis describes God taking one of Adam's ribs while he was asleep to form the first woman, Eve."

Such a belief is literally a kindergarten level Bible bedtime story for toddlers. Issued by biblically illiterate parents who really don't care to comprehend Biblical truth.

That's where you're at in terms of legit scholarship lady whether you believe it or not. Whether you like it or not.

 

[Genez]

"Genesis describes God taking one of Adam's ribs while he was asleep to form the first woman, Eve."

Such a belief is literally a kindergarten level Bible bedtime story for toddlers. Issued by biblically illiterate parents who really don't care to comprehend Biblical truth.

That's where you're at in terms of legit scholarship lady whether you believe it or not. Whether you like it or not.

Adam was put into a "deep sleep?"

Now, death is death.
There is no such thing as a deep death.

.......

 

[cv5]

I believe God chose a people to Himself in Christ before the foundation of the world. It's not a lottery. God never chooses out of a group of people. That would be selection. Instead, God elects. He chooses a people, and then creates them. Just like He did when He created Israel out of Abraham's progeny. He promised Abraham that He would make a great nation from him, and then He did it.

Yea, you know little buddy, vague, nonsensical, unsubstantiated unbiblical pseudo-philosophical"theories" really don't amount to legit scholarship or sound doctrine.

And frankly, that's all that you have to offer.

But what bugs me is people weaseling out of being held accountable for these errant theories that they espouse. The walk-backs. The non-committal slithering irresolute vacillating when confronted. It's just so very irritating.

 

[Cameron143]

Yea, you know little buddy, vague, nonsensical, unsubstantiated unbiblical pseudo-philosophical"theories" really don't amount to legit scholarship or sound doctrine.

And frankly, that's all that you have to offer.

But what bugs me is people weaseling out of being held accountable for these errant theories that they espouse. The walk-backs. The non-committal slithering irresolute vacillating when confronted. It's just so very irritating.

If you would pay better attention to what I actually post rather than what you think I post, you wouldn't have so much anxiety.