toldailytopic: Did God choose an eternity ago who would, and who wouldn't, be saved?

[elohiym]

A wolf likes to divide the flock so he can slaughter the weaker ones.

 

[godrulz]

Then why don't you offer a "theological precise definition" instead of wasting thread space and our time?

The will is therseat of moral/mundane choice, not desires back of the will. Check out libertarian free will vs compatibilism (your view?). There are no end to credible definitions. Unless there is the possibility of contingent choice between alternatives, there is no true free will, love, relationship, responsibility.

 

[godrulz]

Unlike you, many are confused about some things, but when they hear the truth, they change their mind. You have heard the truth tens of thousands of times, and you still reject it. Tom is mistaken about this, even though he proclaims the Gospel as well as anyone on this site. You've never affirmed the Gospel.

I could adopt all of your views and it would not make me more Christian than I already am. I do not deny the essentials, but I may differ on peripheral interpretations. Tom will not change his mind on some of the issues that you say prove I am going to hell. You are being hypocritical/inconsistent (wot).

 

[elohiym]

The will is therseat of moral/mundane choice, not desires back of the will. Check out libertarian free will vs compatibilism (your view?). There are no end to credible definitions. Unless there is the possibility of contingent choice between alternatives, there is no true free will, love, relationship, responsibility.

As I anticipated, you did not provide a "theological precise definition" of free will.

All you posted was an imprecise opinion about others opinions.

That you can talk about "true free will" without defining it is incredible.

 

[godrulz]

A wolf likes to divide the flock so he can slaughter the weaker ones.

As an elder in a local Christian church, you are a clueless retard who does not know what he is talking about in relation to me. I am not the one with the fringe views like you have. Should we resurrect the thread where I was trying to figure out what on earth your doctrine of God was? Your denial of free will is also problematic, and who knows what else.

 

[TeeJay]

Choice doesn't imply free will.

Do you agree with the English language definition of free will that I provided? Yes or no.

elohiym,

I originally responded to your post, referencing Rom. 8:7. You wrote that "the carnal mind is NOT FREE TO CHOOSE TO OBEY the law of God. IT IS ALWAYS DISOBEDIENT. ALWAYS.

I quoted you Romans 8:13 that shows that we have a CHOICE. "For IF you live according to the flesh ou will die; but IF by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will die."

Now for some reason, you want to split hairs with Dictionary definitions. Okay! Choice: "the right, power, or opportunity to choose." (Random House Webster's College Dictionary).

Free will: "free and independent CHOICE." (Random House Webster's Dictionary).

You statment that the carnal mind is ALWAYS disobedient is false. Otherwise, we could never repent. An example: The two prostitutes who came to Solomon to decide who was the mother of the baby. The real mother, though a carnal sinner, chose to give up her baby rather than see it cut in two. The theif on the Cross was carnal, but he repented. Was the good Samaritan carnal when he rendered aid to the stricken man?

If we did not have will or choice, then why would God give us choice as HE plainly does in Romans 8:13?

God bless, Tom from Mabank, TX

 

[Oh no... it's Sozo]

A wolf likes to divide the flock so he can slaughter the weaker ones.

Exactly!

 

[elohiym]

Free will: "free and independent CHOICE." (Random House Webster's Dictionary).

"Free" from what, Tom?

That's what is missing from your definition; it doesn't explain what our choice is free from. The definition from Merriam-Webster does tell us, which is why I use it.

Without telling us what the alleged free choice is free from, the definition you provided is worthless. You can choose vanilla or chocolate! Big deal.

Do you agree that free will, in the context of theology, is the freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention? Yes or no.

 

[godrulz]

If you are arguing for compatibilism, are you a Calvinist/determinist? There is a wealth of technical info on libertarian free will to refute compatibilism (illusory, pseudo-free will). Yes, there is also Calvinistic literature that objects to LFW. I know where I stand, but am not going to engage a futile debate with someone who thinks I am an infidel.

 

[TeeJay]

The impeccability of Christ is related. Do you also agree that Jesus could have sinned, but did not? If yes, you will be cast into hell by sozo, etc.

godrulz,

I pray that we still have a misunderstanding?

The ultimate end of Closed Theism is that God Himself is not free to choose otherwise.

Jesus Christ was tempted in the wilderness by Satan. Hebrews 2:18 confirms that Jesus Christ was "tempted" so that He can be an aid to us who are tempted.

Now Jesus Christ was either tempted or Hebrews is false Scripture. If Jesus Christ COULD NOT HAVE SINNED, then it is not possible for Him to have been tempted.

If God is not a free Agent to do otherwise, then His consistent righteousness has no value or meaning. God can be trusted NOT BECAUSE HE CAN'T SIN; rather He can be trusted BECAUSE HE WON'T SIN. It takes no faith to trust a God who can't break His word.

God bless, Tom from Mabank, TX

 

[BabyChristian]

if He had
why
do we have to go through this?

Exactly!

Why on earth are we born and have to live on earth? :think:

 

[godrulz]

godrulz,

I pray that we still have a misunderstanding?

The ultimate end of Closed Theism is that God Himself is not free to choose otherwise.

Jesus Christ was tempted in the wilderness by Satan. Hebrews 2:18 confirms that Jesus Christ was "tempted" so that He can be an aid to us who are tempted.

Now Jesus Christ was either tempted or Hebrews is false Scripture. If Jesus Christ COULD NOT HAVE SINNED, then it is not possible for Him to have been tempted.

If God is not a free Agent to do otherwise, then His consistent righteousness has no value or meaning. God can be trusted NOT BECAUSE HE CAN'T SIN; rather He can be trusted BECAUSE HE WON'T SIN. It takes no faith to trust a God who can't break His word.

God bless, Tom from Mabank, TX

Agreed, but be prepared to be consigned to hell by the peanut gallery over this.

 

[elohiym]

If you are arguing for compatibilism, are you a Calvinist/determinist? There is a wealth of technical info on libertarian free will to refute compatibilism (illusory, pseudo-free will). Yes, there is also Calvinistic literature that objects to LFW. I know where I stand, but am not going to engage a futile debate with someone who thinks I am an infidel.

Are you ready yet to provide a "theological precise definition" of free will, or will you continue to just post like a mindless robot? :idunno:

 

[elohiym]

Who thinks they freely chose to believe the gospel? :think:

 

[Todah]

Dear Tom, your reading comprehension is deplorable. You missed, all the major points of my post. Then you parsed each sentence and turned practically every one of them upside down.
I was a little upset at first, because you so thoroughly misunderstood what I believe, but by the end I was...:rotfl:

I do feel "compelled" to correct your two most egregious misunderstandings. God was compelled by His love for us to save us.That does not mean He had to save us, it means that His enormous ability to love, left Him burdened to act upon His love for us, who were lost and in need of Him.

Example, if I see my son involved in a car accident, I am compelled by my love for him, to rush to his aid. If it were a stranger, and there were others around who could, and are providing help, and I am already late for work...... I might just drive onward. My God is compelled by His love to help and treat everyone, not just some. He died for the sins of the whole world.

Second, I meant immutable. God's character and characteristics are immutable. He does not change. He is not capricious.

I choose not to correct all the rest of your reading comprehension errors.....I don't have the time right now

Perhaps you could reread sometime when you are not in the mood to pick a fight, where none exists.

Yes, God makes choices, and He decided before the foundation of the world who would, and wouldn't be saved.

How could He choose or reject you if you did not yet exist?





Can He be merciful to the unrepentant sinner and unmerciful to the repentant sinner and remain JUST?



Does it take faith to believe in a God who can't do otherwise? Love must be freely given. You can program your computer to say, "I love you."



Jesus willing died for us. Nothing "compelled" Him. Jesus said, "Do you not know that I can ask my Father for twelve legions of angels and He would send them."



Yikes! Where in the world did you get this? If Jesus Christ had bowed His knee to Satan, would that have been okay. The moral laws are a description of God, just as the physical laws are a description of the universe. God can't lie and remain honest. God can't sin and remain sinless. God can't break His word and remain trustworthy. God can't judge unjustly and remain just.



Was God always a man? That's a big change. Jesus took on the sin of the world. That's a big change. God the Father poured out His wrath on His Son. That's a big change. Jesus Christ (God) sweated, cried, grew weary, felt pain, was tempted--all big changes.



Did you not mean "mutable"? Immutable means that God can't change His mind. No?



But you must realize that if the Father and Son had no choice but to do this, then Jesus' sacrifice has no value.



But He did not have to save anyone, "for all have sinned and come short." He did not arbitrarily choose you or me. Rather, He gave us the freedom to choose or reject Him.



The Bible does not say that God created time. "When time will be no more..." is in a hymn book, not in the Bible. There is time in heaven. Before you existed, God did not know you. Why? Because God can't know the unknowable. If you do not exist, it's impossible for God to know you.



"My grace is sufficient for you." Try making a public pronouncement of your faith in China or Iraq and you will be dead by sundown. Now I agree that when we accept Jesus Christ, "we are sealed with the Holy Sprit until the day of redemption..."

God bless, Tom from Mabank, TX

 

[Oh no... it's Sozo]

I pray that we still have a misunderstanding?

A misunderstanding, is exactly right.

The ultimate end of Closed Theism is that God Himself is not free to choose otherwise.

Can God deny Himself?

Jesus Christ was tempted in the wilderness by Satan.

You do know that the word "tempted" is also the word "tested", right? A temptation can prove the person or thing being tempted (tested). God said: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased". Jesus was tempted (tested) to prove that He is God's Son.

Hebrews 2:18 confirms that Jesus Christ was "tempted" so that He can be an aid to us who are tempted.

Correct. We are tempted (tested) to prove who we are.

If Jesus Christ COULD NOT HAVE SINNED, then it is not possible for Him to have been tempted.

Not true. The temptation proved that He is God, who cannot sin.

If God is not a free Agent to do otherwise, then His consistent righteousness has no value or meaning.

He is not God, if He can do otherwise.

It takes no faith to trust a God who can't break His word.

That is not why we have faith.

 

[Lighthouse]

elohiym,

I originally responded to your post, referencing Rom. 8:7. You wrote that "the carnal mind is NOT FREE TO CHOOSE TO OBEY the law of God. IT IS ALWAYS DISOBEDIENT. ALWAYS.

I quoted you Romans 8:13 that shows that we have a CHOICE. "For IF you live according to the flesh ou will die; but IF by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will die."

Now for some reason, you want to split hairs with Dictionary definitions. Okay! Choice: "the right, power, or opportunity to choose." (Random House Webster's College Dictionary).

Free will: "free and independent CHOICE." (Random House Webster's Dictionary).

You statment that the carnal mind is ALWAYS disobedient is false. Otherwise, we could never repent. An example: The two prostitutes who came to Solomon to decide who was the mother of the baby. The real mother, though a carnal sinner, chose to give up her baby rather than see it cut in two. The theif on the Cross was carnal, but he repented. Was the good Samaritan carnal when he rendered aid to the stricken man?

If we did not have will or choice, then why would God give us choice as HE plainly does in Romans 8:13?

God bless, Tom from Mabank, TX

Why do you assume it is the carnal mind that repents?

 

[godrulz]

Who thinks they freely chose to believe the gospel? :think:

No one believes without His influence, persuasion, initiation, wooing, drawing, but it is not causative/coercive. Do you think it is causative, unilateral like Calvinistic decretalism, determinism, TULIP?

 

[elohiym]

No one believes without His influence, persuasion, initiation, wooing, drawing, but it is not causative/coercive. Do you think it is causative, unilateral like Calvinistic decretalism, determinism, TULIP?

Did YOU freely chose to believe the gospel? Yes or no.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Calvinism. I am not a Calvinist.

Just give a straight answer to the question.

 

[godrulz]

Did YOU freely chose to believe the gospel? Yes or no.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Calvinism. I am not a Calvinist.

Just give a straight answer to the question.

According to Acts, the gospel is preached persuasively with men able to receive or reject Christ, but not apart from the non-coercive influence of the Spirit. If there is no choice, you go down the TULIP road (determinism).

Jn. 1:12; Jn. 3:16 vs Jn. 3:36 Does God believe for us and does Satan unbelieve for the sinner?!