B
Blue155
Guest
When it comes to having the freedom and ability to choose morals, choice and free will are synonymous.
Can We Really Exercise Free Will?
- Thread starter LifelongLearner
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
B
Blue155
Guest
How long are we going to argue? If I give you a definition, it will just continue the disagreement and argument back and forth. More than likely, you will disagree with the definition, which will just lead to other disagreements from us. It is difficult to tell whether we are either angry at one another through words, or when we are genuinely trying to understand the others side. And this is one of the reasons I hate written/typing communication. I would hope if we met in person that the conversation would be much more cordial and polite, as I tend to unfortunately get riled up pretty quick in online convos and sometimes in person, and that’s one of the many faults I have. Look, we can argue about what we have been arguing about until judgment day, but we aren’t gonna change each other’s minds. I fall short of God’s glory everyday, and am in need of His mercy and grace. I don’t have all the answers and will not ever have all the answers, but it is apparent that we both believe we are right on this topic, and it is apparent we both believe the other is wrong, otherwise we wouldn’t believe what we do. Regardless, despite our disagreements, I still believe you would want and hope for me to go to be with Jesus in eternity, and the feeling is mutual. I wish no ill will to you or anyone else who disagrees with me on this topic. Thank you for the discussion.
Free will is defined as the ability of the flesh to do that which Scripture says it cannot.
While captive to the will of the devil, enslaved to sin, a lover of darkness refusing to
come into the light, opposed to the spiritual things of God, and hostile toward Him.
O
OLDBUTNEW
Guest
No, it doesn't. But the clueless Calvinists say that it does. Wrongly.
I am sensing another types spirit here, more like a seducing spirit than the Holy Spirit. A common scene, generally in here and other sites as well.
This opinion of hers is front-loaded with false assumptions. Garbage in garbage out.....
I pick up on the hissing and slithering in almost every Calvinist post.....
B
Blue155
Guest
@cv5, why won’t Calvinists be consistent and give God credit for all the bad things if they give Him credit for all the good things due to Him eternally decreeing all events, per Calvinism? They won’t admit that, but that’s what Calvinism teaches.
I pick up on the hissing and slithering in almost every Calvinist post.....
Well, the hissing and slithering is only one of it's form. There's another form which is like an angel of light. They do deliverance, healing and miracles as well, even call out fire from heaven.
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Proverbs 23:23 Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding.
John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
We have already gone over this point. You are also not addressing 2 Thessalonians 2:10 or Jonah 3.
You brought up internet conspiracy theories, and I had to correct you on your initial denial that Calvinist churches even exist here in the United States. That should have been an obvious fact that I should not have needed to explain. Normal people know how to do a basic Google search. Likewise, normal Christians should be able to explain what the Bible says in light of their own beliefs.
Since this conversation is clearly not moving forward, I am going to refrain from replying further unless you offer something more substantial, such as an actual apologetic dealing with verses that make Calvinism impossible, like 2 Thessalonians 2:10 or Jonah 3.
....
B
Blue155
Guest
If God eternally decreed/orchestrated all events leading up to the crucifixion, then that would also mean He eternally decreed/orchestrated all choices that man made, as that would be eternally decreeing the choices that man were employed to do. And since those choices of crucifying the Lord were sinful, then that would mean He eternally decreed/orchestrated to employ man to commit sinful choices, and He predetermined the sinful choices for man to commit!! Calvinism wants us to believe God willed man or created them to sin. Again, they won’t admit that, but it’s an inescapable conclusion!!
Think how awful this sounds.
If God eternally decreed, ordered, fixed and or set in stone man’s choices, thoughts, actions, etc leading up to the crucifixion and the crucifixion itself, then per Calvinism, God eternally decreed sin. That means He eternally decreed Judas to betray Christ, eternally decreed Peter to deny Christ 3x, eternally decreed man to murder Jesus, and on and on. IOW, God willed it with absolute certainty that man would sin, as they were eternally predetermined to do so by God. That would make Him directly responsible of all the sin and evil, which would make Him the author of evil and sin. That is Calvinism. That is heresy. That is blasphemy.
Think how awful this sounds.
If God eternally decreed, ordered, fixed and or set in stone man’s choices, thoughts, actions, etc leading up to the crucifixion and the crucifixion itself, then per Calvinism, God eternally decreed sin. That means He eternally decreed Judas to betray Christ, eternally decreed Peter to deny Christ 3x, eternally decreed man to murder Jesus, and on and on. IOW, God willed it with absolute certainty that man would sin, as they were eternally predetermined to do so by God. That would make Him directly responsible of all the sin and evil, which would make Him the author of evil and sin. That is Calvinism. That is heresy. That is blasphemy.
How do you explain such a short, abbreviated interpretation of v. 8 & 9?
Peter's letter is written to the elect whom he calls "dear friends" and the "you" in v. 9 are the dear friends to whom he was writing? "Not will that anyone should perish" applies to those "dear friends" who were being bombarded with false teachers (vv. 3-4), which is why they were in danger of falling away. And these were, of course, ungodly men (v.7). Verse 9 does not say that God does not will that anyone on the planet should perish. (Can you spell EISEGESIS!?) If this were the case then God would be longsuffering/patient toward the entire human race whom He wants to come to repentance; yet the passage doesn't say this either! God's patience is directed to his elect who He doesn't want to fall away and perish at the hands of the ungodly false teachers. IOW, this is a gracious WARNING text to the people God loves.
Also, in v. 9 the "anyone" logically refers back to its nearest antecedent, which is "you". And "you" isn't the entire world in the distributive sense.
Also, it's mighty strange that Peter cites the the judgment of the Flood, and doesn't ask the entire world, who supposedly He doesn't want to perish. Why didn't Peter in v. 11 write "what kind of people ought THEY to be"? Instead, he asks his audience this direct question. "What kind of people ought YOU to be"?
Finally, v. 17 affirms my remarks about God's warning -- in terms of the reason for the warning. He doesn't want his "dear friends" to be carried away and enticed by the error of lawless men (false teachers) and fall away. And again, this explains Peter's remarks about God's patience toward his audience which isn't the entire world.
So let me get this straight.
You believe the Elect, whom you say were eternally decreed to salvation before the foundation of the world, were actually in danger of perishing?
If they cannot perish, why does Peter warn them at all?
Warnings only make sense if there is a real possibility of danger. Otherwise the warning becomes pointless.
You claim verse 9 only applies to the Elect and that God is being patient toward them so that they will not perish. Yet according to your own system the Elect were never in danger in the first place. This makes Peter’s entire warning meaningless and contradictory.
You say the “you” in verse 9 must refer only to the Elect, yet the same context mentions ungodly men in verse 7. The broader context includes both the righteous and the unrighteous. Peter is contrasting the two groups, not limiting the warning to one.
You also appealed to the “nearest antecedent” rule, but that rule only applies when the context does not expand the scope. In this very chapter the context clearly includes judgment upon the ungodly world. Peter’s use of “all” and “any” is consistent with God’s desire that men everywhere repent. Scripture interprets Scripture.
You also mentioned the Flood. That example actually works against you. God warned the world for one hundred and twenty years through Noah. If God had no desire for the ungodly to repent, why did He warn them at all? The Flood account reveals both God’s long-suffering and His judgment.
And Peter asking “what manner of persons ought you to be” does not limit God’s desire. That is simply Peter applying the message to his audience. This is basic letter writing.
Here is the simple point. If the Elect cannot perish, then your interpretation of verse 9 collapses. Peter’s words become empty. The warnings become pointless. And your claim that God is patient toward the Elect so that they will not perish becomes nonsensical because, according to you, perishing was never possible for them.
Verse 9 is a universal call to repentance.
It is consistent with God’s revealed character in Scripture.
It is consistent with His warnings.
It is consistent with His patience toward sinners.
Your interpretation, however, forces the text into a theological mold that creates contradictions Peter never wrote.
That is why your reading does not work.
.....
The will of man lives in the flesh, the flesh can not save it's self
The will of man not only lives in the flesh but lives in mans nature but his nature also is his soul
well im finding it very difficult to share the word of God with people here as it keeps getting rejected and unanswered.
And theres never much agreement from you and the others like you,
So you tell me how on earth can I discuss God with you.
It's fine enjoy your free will while it lasts, I'm so use to saying while it lasts because I'm so use to believing my head is going to pop at one moment
I'm not upset in any way. I'm giving a perspective on what the Bible teaches. Your responses teach me more of your understanding of scripture as well as open other aspects of scripture to explore. While the conversation involves salvation, it doesn't determine salvation. One doesn't have to understand the outworking of salvation to be saved. One only needs to believe.
Grace and peace.
you've poisened yourself mate, and you've only got yourself to blame m
Once you shot all the messengers m sadly there's no more for you
While I do not agree with Rufus’s belief in Calvinism, I at least respect the fact that he tries to explain things with Scripture, even if the logic is flawed. You are not even attempting to do what he is doing.
Right now your approach to discussing Scripture is not even happening. Your replies look like someone furiously smashing a keyboard while a pack of German shepherds howls in the background, hoping the noise will magically turn into a theological argument.
If you want an actual theological discussion, you have to give actual explanations with Scripture and explain the tough verses. Not riddles. Not complaints that your head might pop. Not vague statements about free will “while it lasts.” Give verses. Give reasoning. Give something we can respond to. Otherwise, you are not having a discussion about God. You are just yelling into the wind and blaming us for the echo.
....