Free will is simply....

[MennoSota]

It's more of a stretch to go through the whole volume of the Book, and come away with it teaching that free will isn't real.
I demand nothing more from the Creator than Who He is, and that includes exhaustive, definite power over His whole creation, including human beings, who possess free will. Though I hesitate to use your word 'demand,' since there is no demand on my part here. I receive the truth of Who God is, I don't make up anything about Him, and I wouldn't use 'demand' concerning Him, not in any irreverent sense, but only like the widow who complained to the judge in Jesus's parable.
It can't; not if what I believe is the truth from God. I've quoted before and I'll do so now, the Catechism of the Catholic Church on 'divine providence:'
Herein defines the relationship between free will and God's exhaustive definite sovereignty. Everything we possess is by His permission, and through His enabling. And whether or not we consciously enter deliberately into His plan, we are always collaborating with His exhaustive, definite, sovereign will; and we are always free to consciously enter deliberately into His plan also.

You claim a dual throne with God (even though you cannot see it).
The Bible never once teaches free will, but it does teach God's choice, God's election and God's predestination. I accept what God declares above your man-made philosophy of free-will.
The syncretism you teach is a veiled attempt to be your own ruler. Your statement that you accept God's Sovereignty is only lip service. Your theology makes you the king and God is your ever responsive servant to your will.

 

[Idolater]

You claim a dual throne with God (even though you cannot see it).
The Bible never once teaches free will, but it does teach God's choice, God's election and God's predestination. I accept what God declares above your man-made philosophy of free-will.

In the two passages you quoted, I showed you many times where what's written only makes sense if free will is real, otherwise Paul would've been writing superfluously, if it makes any sense at all. The alternative is that God is unjust, since it is Him calling all the shots, and then penalizing those who are only doing what He made them do in the first place. And I know that you'll counter with Romans 9, and I receive and believe Romans 9, but that's why I keep trying to focus what Christian faith actually is---believing in Christ's Resurrection. It's as simple as that. We can choose to believe, or choose to not believe. Romans 9 isn't concerned with believing in Christ's Resurrection. John 3:18 KJV is though: 'he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed'

The syncretism you teach is a veiled attempt to be your own ruler.

I pass on what the Catholic Church teaches. Your view depends upon the pastorate that God Himself willed into being, through the work of Jesus Christ, and of His Apostles, whom He commissioned to administrate His Church, is defunct. I do not find anywhere in Sacred Scripture where that's a possibility.

Your statement that you accept God's Sovereignty is only lip service. Your theology makes you the king and God is your ever responsive servant to your will.

Those things are just not true.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Why would God create a being that is equal to or greater than himself?
Scripture never places man on such a high pedestal. In fact, scripture paints man as corrupted and depraved. It is utterly arrogant for humans to promote a philosophy of free-will that attempts to tear God down.

How do you get that GOD created a being equal to HIM if free will for HIS creation is HIS will?

How do you equate free will to being greater than GOD? look around you? What of that could have been formed by man without GOD?

Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

In the two passages you quoted, I showed you many times where what's written only makes sense if free will is real, otherwise Paul would've been writing superfluously, if it makes any sense at all. The alternative is that God is unjust, since it is Him calling all the shots, and then penalizing those who are only doing what He made them do in the first place. And I know that you'll counter with Romans 9, and I receive and believe Romans 9, but that's why I keep trying to focus what Christian faith actually is---believing in Christ's Resurrection. It's as simple as that. We can choose to believe, or choose to not believe. Romans 9 isn't concerned with believing in Christ's Resurrection. John 3:18 KJV is though: 'he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed'
I pass on what the Catholic Church teaches. Your view depends upon the pastorate that God Himself willed into being, through the work of Jesus Christ, and of His Apostles, whom He commissioned to administrate His Church, is defunct. I do not find anywhere in Sacred Scripture where that's a possibility.
Those things are just not true.

You have created a philosophy along with the Roman church. It is syncretism and it attempts to tear down God's sovereignty while lifting up the church at Rome.
You are attempting to argue a philosophy while ignoring the vast number of verses that I posted regarding God's choice, God's election and God's predestination.

 

[MennoSota]

How do you get that GOD created a being equal to HIM if free will for HIS creation is HIS will?

How do you equate free will to being greater than GOD? look around you? What of that could have been formed by man without GOD?

Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk

I have gone over how the human will cannot be free as long as God rules over and above humans. You reject that statement. The outcome is you declaring yourself to be equal to or greater than God.

 

[Idolater]

You have created a philosophy along with the Roman church. It is syncretism and it attempts to tear down God's sovereignty while lifting up the church at Rome.

No, it doesn't. And the church at Rome is the one that Peter pastored, and the one that Paul wrote Romans to, and the Church in communion with Peter's supreme pastorate, is the Church that Jesus Christ founded.

You are attempting to argue a philosophy while ignoring the vast number of verses that I posted regarding God's choice, God's election and God's predestination.

You keep saying that, but it's not true.

 

[MennoSota]

No, it doesn't. And the church at Rome is the one that Peter pastored, and the one that Paul wrote Romans to, and the Church in communion with Peter's supreme pastorate, is the Church that Jesus Christ founded.
You keep saying that, but it's not true.

Who cares. Just because an Apostle bopped in to say hi or wrote a letter doesn't make that church correct in its theology today.
The traditions of men are always defined by the scriptures. The Bible doesn't teach free-will, therefore it is a false teaching...a man-made philosophy.
You continue to ignore, completely ignore the vast number of verses and passages that teach God's choice, God's election, and God's predestination. Why do you ignore them???

 

[Idolater]

Who cares. Just because an Apostle bopped in to say hi or wrote a letter

That's really how you perceive history, isn't it? You're not exaggerating.

doesn't make that church correct in its theology today.

I'm saying that if 'that church' is THE Church, that Jesus Christ founded, then you have to deal with that, even more than you need to concern yourself with teasing out your personal notions about how to interpret the scriptures, in a vacuum, in an echo chamber, with blinders on. Plainer than the teachings of God's exhaustive definite sovereignty over His creation---a thing which I have ceaselessly confessed to believing in, which sets me apart from every 'arminian,' every, 'socinian' or 'pelagian'---is the teachings of the reality, legitimacy, and Apostolically authorized pastorate of the Church, involving priests, deacons, and Bishops, who are at the top of the pastoral hierarchy, and have been since the Apostolic age; the Apostles themselves being the first Twelve Church bishops of the college of bishops, who exist still today, and have always existed since Pentecost in AD 33.

The traditions of men are always defined by the scriptures. The Bible doesn't teach free-will, therefore it is a false teaching...a man-made philosophy.

The Bible teaches there are Apostolic traditions that are not necessarily recorded for us in the Bible. 1st Corinthians 11:2 KJV and 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 KJV

You continue to ignore, completely ignore the vast number of verses and passages that teach God's choice, God's election, and God's predestination. Why do you ignore them???

I still am not doing that. I already explained for you how they integrate together.

 

[MennoSota]

That's really how you perceive history, isn't it? You're not exaggerating.
I'm saying that if 'that church' is THE Church, that Jesus Christ founded, then you have to deal with that, even more than you need to concern yourself with teasing out your personal notions about how to interpret the scriptures, in a vacuum, in an echo chamber, with blinders on. Plainer than the teachings of God's exhaustive definite sovereignty over His creation---a thing which I have ceaselessly confessed to believing in, which sets me apart from every 'arminian,' every, 'socinian' or 'pelagian'---is the teachings of the reality, legitimacy, and Apostolically authorized pastorate of the Church, involving priests, deacons, and Bishops, who are at the top of the pastoral hierarchy, and have been since the Apostolic age; the Apostles themselves being the first Twelve Church bishops of the college of bishops, who exist still today, and have always existed since Pentecost in AD 33.
The Bible teaches there are Apostolic traditions that are not necessarily recorded for us in the Bible. 1st Corinthians 11:2 KJV and 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 KJV
I still am not doing that. I already explained for you how they integrate together.

The Roman church is NOT THE church. There is your fatal flaw.
Christ is THE church. There are a few of God's elect within the Roman church, I am sure, but many are dead in their trespasses and sins. That can be said of most denominations, I am sure. God's elect are not bound up in a denomination, nor is their any biblical support for such a claim as you have made.
You IF is demonstrably NOT.

 

[Idolater]

The Roman church is NOT THE church. There is your fatal flaw.

Well I didn't say that it was. I said the Church that Jesus Christ founded, is together all those churches in communion with the Roman church, and more precisely, with the Roman church's supreme pastor, known as the archbishop. The Roman church's pastorate is Peter's final pastorate of his life, and so every subsequent archbishop of the Roman church is very reasonably called 'Peter's successor,' since it is the same church/diocese, and the same pastorate of that same church, as when Peter presided over the whole Church, as supreme pastor, as he presided over the Roman church, which was his church as archbishop of Rome.

Christ is THE church.

The Body of Christ is THE Church.

There are a few of God's elect within the Roman church, I am sure

Yes I'm sure there are.

Why would a person go to Mass, unless they believed in Christ's Resurrection?

, but many are dead in their trespasses and sins. That can be said of most denominations, I am sure. God's elect are not bound up in a denomination

Right. All those who believe in Christ are Christians, Catholic or not, and we are everywhere. But one of those 'denominations' is the one that Jesus Christ actually started, and all the others are not.

If the Church that Jesus founded is no longer extant, then this could go on forever, our disagreement, but the Catholic Church is the same one He founded. And if not Catholicism, then it's the Orthodox churches, but those are the only options, because the other ancient churches only somewhat resemble what we both believe is orthodox, and the church traditions that began more recently obviously cannot be Jesus's own Church.

, nor is their any biblical support for such a claim as you have made.

Which claim? I reread your post, but I don't know which claim you're talking about.

You IF is demonstrably NOT.

'Doesn't appear to be.

 

[MennoSota]

Well I didn't say that it was. I said the Church that Jesus Christ founded, is together all those churches in communion with the Roman church, and more precisely, with the Roman church's supreme pastor, known as the archbishop. The Roman church's pastorate is Peter's final pastorate of his life, and so every subsequent archbishop of the Roman church is very reasonably called 'Peter's successor,' since it is the same church/diocese, and the same pastorate of that same church, as when Peter presided over the whole Church, as supreme pastor, as he presided over the Roman church, which was his church as archbishop of Rome.
The Body of Christ is THE Church.
Yes I'm sure there are.

Why would a person go to Mass, unless they believed in Christ's Resurrection?
Right. All those who believe in Christ are Christians, Catholic or not, and we are everywhere. But one of those 'denominations' is the one that Jesus Christ actually started, and all the others are not.

If the Church that Jesus founded is no longer extant, then this could go on forever, our disagreement, but the Catholic Church is the same one He founded. And if not Catholicism, then it's the Orthodox churches, but those are the only options, because the other ancient churches only somewhat resemble what we both believe is orthodox, and the church traditions that began more recently obviously cannot be Jesus's own Church.
Which claim? I reread your post, but I don't know which claim you're talking about.
'Doesn't appear to be.

I'll show you. Just recently the pope told a little boy that his atheist dad is in heaven because the dad let his kids be baptized into the Roman church.
That statement is a heresy of the first degree. Your leader is a charlatan who is pointing the entire church at Rome toward hell. Of course, he's just following a millenium of false teaching from Mary worship to indulgences.
The traditions of Rome have been guided by hell for years. I suggest you flee quickly from Jezebel.
People go to Rome out of fear that has been ingrained from youth. Rome and Islam both teach works as the means of receiving God's mercy. Neither understands God's gracious choice of adoption by God's will alone. Rome, for a millenium refused to allow mass to be performed in anything but Latin. Muslims refuse to memorize the Quran in anything but Arabic. Both keep their followers by playing on fear. Both have leadership lead by hell.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Who cares. Just because an Apostle bopped in to say hi or wrote a letter doesn't make that church correct in its theology today.
The traditions of men are always defined by the scriptures. The Bible doesn't teach free-will, therefore it is a false teaching...a man-made philosophy.
You continue to ignore, completely ignore the vast number of verses and passages that teach God's choice, God's election, and God's predestination. Why do you ignore them???

It is you who ignores scripture and makes your own doctrine as free will is in the Bible multiple times directly, and is inferred by all the passages that show us we must choose.

Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

It is you who ignores scripture and makes your own doctrine as free will is in the Bible multiple times directly, and is inferred by all the passages that show us we must choose.

Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk

LOL, you have ignored the vast number of passages where God explicitly chooses, elects and predestines. Why do you do that?
I have very clearly walked you through the process of God's ordained yes to some of our choices while saying no to others. I have shown through scripture that humans never choose God because they never seek God until God chooses to save them.
It's all God. But, you want a dual rulership. That is a horrifying thought.

 

[popsthebuilder]

LOL, you have ignored the vast number of passages where God explicitly chooses, elects and predestines. Why do you do that?
I have very clearly walked you through the process of God's ordained yes to some of our choices while saying no to others. I have shown through scripture that humans never choose God because they never seek God until God chooses to save them.
It's all God. But, you want a dual rulership. That is a horrifying thought.

You are simply making my beliefs up as you go. Your words in no way accurately describe my beliefs. Your magnificent illogic shines through as usual. You are veiled by a dark shade.

Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

You have created a philosophy along with the Roman church. It is syncretism and it attempts to tear down God's sovereignty while lifting up the church at Rome.
You are attempting to argue a philosophy while ignoring the vast number of verses that I posted regarding God's choice, God's election and God's predestination.

No sir; I in no way refute the omnipotence of GOD. HIS will be done.

Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

You are simply making my beliefs up as you go. Your words in no way accurately describe my beliefs. Your magnificent illogic shines through as usual. You are veiled by a dark shade.

Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk

I notice you ignored the Bible.

 

[MennoSota]

No sir; I in no way refute the omnipotence of GOD. HIS will be done.

Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk

But, you fight his Sovereignty by claiming free-will. You are not, cannot and will not ever be a co-ruler. There is no such thing as free-will.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I notice you ignored the Bible.

What is that supposed to mean?

More blank assuming insinuations I suppose.

I read/ study the Bible daily; not that it is your business l, but because you would love if such was otherwise; you who blankly lies about what is in scripture in order to bolster your own made doctrine.

Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

But, you fight his Sovereignty by claiming free-will. You are not, cannot and will not ever be a co-ruler. There is no such thing as free-will.

Your flaw in reasoning seems to be that you conflate GOD given freedom with GOD.

I've asked you how you conclude such more than once friend. How do you arrive at such? Please explain it.

Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

What is that supposed to mean?

More blank assuming insinuations I suppose.

I read/ study the Bible daily; not that it is your business l, but because you would love if such was otherwise; you who blankly lies about what is in scripture in order to bolster your own made doctrine.

Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk

I have provided a large list of verses and passages declaring God's choice, God's election and God's predestination. You ignore them all. Why?