Choice 'A' or Choice 'A', Which will it be?

[humblethinker]

JBH28, I would be interested in your answers to my previous post (post #5).

 

[Winman]

Your straw man again. A spiritual dead person is not a physically dead person. A Spiritually dead person still makes choices, has a will.... The only thing illogical is your straw man.
Yep, because he doesn't desire spiritual things. He is spiritually dead.

I don't know if you agree with Iconoclast, but how did he handle my swimming pool analogy? He compared a spiritually dead person to a lifeless body floating face down in the pool.

If I threw a life perserver to this floating lifeless person, could he choose to take hold of it? NO.

Could he refuse the life preserver? NO!

You just don't get it, you cannot have choice without the REAL ABILITY to both accept or refuse God's grace.

Calvinism redefines words. Choice means the ABILITY to choose between at least two available options. If you do not have at least two available options you cannot have choice, and if you do not have the real ability to choose either of these options you do not have choice.

You cannot understand this because you have been taught to believe an illogical impossibility.

This is why the debate never ends, you cannot convince someone who is illogical with logic.

 

[jbh28]

1) Since I am not sure I am thinking about the same thing you are, and since you say the choice is very known, can you tell me what the choice is between then?

Choosing God or self

2) Would you say that the choice(s) available can be contrary to the choice God already made?

Not sure what you are asking

It seems that Cals would say that God does not ever give man the ability to choose to believe in Him while simultaneously making available the contrary choice of not believing in Him. Would you say that God does make those options available? If He does, then does God enable man to choose either? I'm not making an accusation, I'm just seeking clarification.the reason man doesn't choose God is because of man's sin.


Are you saying this would never happen because the unsaved would at some point in their life have the God given opportunity to choose (a) or (b), that it would never be (a) or (a)? But that, regardless of either scenario man would choose (a)?
(I don't think you are saying that but please clarify.)


It seems, unless we change the definition of the word 'choice', that it's inherent meaning is to choose one option that is contrary, in some form, to the other option. Would you agree with this?

a choice is where there are two or more options and I choose one of them. So for instance, the gospel is presented. A person has a choice to reject or believe.

 

[jbh28]

I don't know if you agree with Iconoclast, but how did he handle my swimming pool analogy? He compared a spiritually dead person to a lifeless body floating face down in the pool.

If I threw a life perserver to this floating lifeless person, could he choose to take hold of it? NO.

Could he refuse the life preserver? NO!

An analogy is an analogy. You don't take every part of the analogy(or it would just be the same thing).

You just don't get it, you cannot have choice without the REAL ABILITY to both accept or refuse God's grace.

no, a choice is having two options.

Calvinism redefines words. Choice means the ABILITY to choose between at least two available options. If you do not have at least two available options you cannot have choice, and if you do not have the real ability to choose either of these options you do not have choice.

You have the choice to reject or accept the gospel.

[personal attack removed

There is no reason to be unkind.

 

[Winman]

An analogy is an analogy. You don't take every part of the analogy(or it would just be the same thing).
no, a choice is having two options.

You have the choice to reject or accept the gospel.

There is no reason to be unkind.

Ok, I approach a dead person and say you can have chicken for dinner tonight, or you can have steak for dinner tonight, which do you choose?

I have presented two options to this dead person, so according to your view he has a choice.

Can that dead person choose?

 

[jbh28]

Ok, I approach a dead person and say you can have chicken for dinner tonight, or you can have steak for dinner tonight, which do you choose?

I have presented two options to this dead person, so according to your view he has a choice.

Can that dead person choose?

physically dead doesn't equal spiritually dead. a spiritually dead person CAN make choices and DOES have a WILL! I wonder how many times I must say that.

 

[humblethinker]

a choice is where there are two or more options and I choose one of them. So for instance, the gospel is presented. A person has a choice to reject or believe.

What we have agreed upon:
1) A choice is where there are two or more options and I choose one of them.
2) You say that man has a choice between choosing to reject or believe. These are two options that are obviously not the same. so far, so good...

I ask the following because I think it is relevant, although it may sound redundant and if so, then just humor me here... Would you agree that what must be inherant in the definition above is that logically it cannot be considered an option unless there is access to that option (as indicated in the 'there are' part of the definition), therefore allowing it to be chosen, e.g. I cannot choose to be taller than I am, that option is not available to me. However, if it is accessible to me, then it can be chosen, e.g. As you have proposed, I must choose God or Self (believe or reject), both are accessible to me and therefore this is a viable logical construction of a choice. Do you agree?

 

[Iconoclast]

This is why I said earlier that you cannot use logic in a debate with Calvinists, because Calvinism consists of illogical contradictions. The Calvinist believes the spiritually dead can rebel against God, he can steal, he can lie, he can utter blasphemy, he can murder... he can do all sorts of bad things.

Pretty lively for a lifeless corpse if you ask me.

But mention hearing the Word of God and believeing it, and suddenly the spiritually dead is a lifeless corpse that can do nothing.

So, one moment the spiritually dead has all sorts of ability, the next moment he has none.

Just another illogical argument that only a Calvinist can believe.

God enables a sinner to do what he cannot do...not logical,but supernatural and biblical.....rise up and walk,,,,stretch forth your hand

The nonsense will end when you actually believe some of the verses offered to you,rather than looking to logic,and human wisdom for truth.

 

[Iconoclast]

You see how ridiculous this theology becomes? You say the spiritually dead are like a lifeless corpse, but only concerning good, they can do any number of evil things.

Then you admit they can have faith and believe, only it is not saving faith.

And when Iconoclast says he KNOWS he is elect, this is another illogical argument, for if Limited Atonement is true, there is no way whatsoever to know you are saved short of God coming down and telling you. You could be self deceived with this false faith that these lifeless corpses have the ability to express.

Where does the nonsense end?

It is better to look to scripture for these answers

10Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

We are to make our calling and election sure.....that presupposes the elect believe in both election and assurance of salvation.
That illogical calvinist Peter taught this.

24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

I believe Jesus here.

 

[Winman]

God enables a sinner to do what he cannot do...not logical,but supernatural and biblical.....rise up and walk,,,,stretch forth your hand

The nonsense will end when you actually believe some of the verses offered to you,rather than looking to logic,and human wisdom for truth.

Jesus could only heal these persons if they FIRST believed.

Mk 6:5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.

Why was Jesus not able to perform any mighty works here? It is explained in the next verse.

Mk 6:6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages teaching.

Jesus could not do any mighty works because of the people's unbelief. And notice he marvelled at their unbelief. If a person can only have faith if God regenerates them, why would he be surprised?

We see the father of the possessed boy in chapter 9.

Mk 9:22 And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us. 23 Jesus said unto him, IF THOU CANST BELIEVE, ALL THING ARE POSSIBLE TO HIM THAT BELIEVETH.

This man questioned Jesus's ability, but Jesus said the issue is whether he the father could believe. If he could believe, then it was possible to heal his son, if he could not believe, then Jesus could not heal his son.

Jesus could not heal a person unless they first believed.

 

[Iconoclast]

Jesus could not heal a person unless they first believed

really.....
explain this one then..am interested to see how this matches your idea!

41Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.

42And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.

43And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.

44And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.

Jesus used signs to teach lessons....how did lazarus believe, while he was dead?
you said he could not be healed unless he believed first,correct??

or was he regenerated first,and enabled to hear the command and live?

 

[Alive in Christ]

Aaron...

I don't know what Calvinists you're talking to, but Calvinists are true to the Scriptures.

Actually...sometimes calvinists are true to the scriptures, but other times they are in great error. The scriptures are 100% true and without error. Calvins Institutes are not scripture, so they are NOT inerrant as the scriptures are.

God has placed before men life and death. A man in his natural state will always choose death,...

Really?

I was in my natural state, lost an undone, and I chose life. I decided at a point in time to repent, and embrace Christ by faith alone. And millions of others would say the same thing.

And as a result my life was revolutionized for the better from that day forword.

I made a choice.

...because that is what he loves, and a man born of God will always choose life, because that is what he loves.

You are a little off with that.

Its actually...

"A man who chooses Christ, will be eternally born of God."

 

[Winman]

physically dead doesn't equal spiritually dead. a spiritually dead person CAN make choices and DOES have a WILL! I wonder how many times I must say that.

No, you say an unregenerate man is utterly enslaved by his own nature and fallen will and CANNOT choose God unless God regenerates him, giving him a will that can choose God.

You say he is FREE to choose AND at the same time you say he is a SLAVE and cannot choose. This is a contradiction and cannot be true.

If he is free he can actually choose God, if he is enslaved he cannot. He must be one or the other, he cannot be both at the same time as you falsely believe.

Why can't you see the obvious contradiction in your view?

 

[Iconoclast]

No, you say an unregenerate man is utterly enslaved by his own nature and fallen will and CANNOT choose God unless God regenerates him, giving him a will that can choose God.

You say he is FREE to choose AND at the same time you say he is a SLAVE and cannot choose. This is a contradiction and cannot be true.

If he is free he can actually choose God, if he is enslaved he cannot. He must be one or the other, he cannot be both at the same time as you falsely believe.

Why can't you see the obvious contradiction in your view?

Jesus taught clearly on this very topic.without as you like to say,contradiction;

31Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

32And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
33They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
34Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
35And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.

36If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. 37I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

They did not know they were bound by sin, Jesus explained that only those the Son makes free, are free.....
Do you see it now....Jesus did not say....it is up to you to accept me, or decide, or choose...as you men say all the time...Jesus said they were slaves to sin, bound
His word found no place in them....

 

[Winman]

really.....
explain this one then..am interested to see how this matches your idea!



Jesus used signs to teach lessons....how did lazarus believe, while he was dead?
you said he could not be healed unless he believed first,correct??

or was he regenerated first,and enabled to hear the command and live?

Well, if you read the scriptures you would know Lazarus was the brother of Martha and Mary, both believers, and that Jesus told his disciples that "Our friend Lazarus sleepeth" in John 11:11. Lazarus was a believer.

 

[Iconoclast]

Well, if you read the scriptures you would know Lazarus was the brother of Martha and Mary, both believers, and that Jesus told his disciples that "Our friend Lazarus sleepeth" in John 11:11. Lazarus was a believer.

Yes he was....but you said he had to believe or have faith before healing could take place, that God cannot heal without belief..
How did he believe Jesus would call him forth to be healed that day,when he was dead?

also see post 54

 

[Winman]

Jesus taught clearly on this very topic.without as you like to say,contradiction;


They did not know they were bound by sin, Jesus explained that only those the Son makes free, are free.....
Do you see it now....Jesus did not say....it is up to you to accept me, or decide, or choose...as you men say all the time...Jesus said they were slaves to sin, bound
His word found no place in them....

Read it again, Jesus did not say a person must sin because they are a servant of sin, he said whosoever commits sin is the servant of sin. You teach exactly opposite of what Jesus taught.

Which comes first, does a person start taking drugs because they are a drug addict, or does a person become a drug addict by first taking drugs?

 

[Iconoclast]

Read it again, Jesus did not say a person must sin because they are a servant of sin, he said whosoever commits sin is the servant of sin. You teach exactly opposite of what Jesus taught.

commits =practice
servant equals slave

stop trying to weasel out,read the whole passage

32And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

33They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
34Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

35And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.

36If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

37I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

38I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

39They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

40But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

41Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

42Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

43Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

45And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

46Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?

47He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

33They answered him, `Seed of Abraham we are; and to no one have we been servants at any time; how dost thou say -- Ye shall become free?'

34Jesus answered them, `Verily, verily, I say to you -- Every one who is committing sin, is a servant of the sin,
35and the servant doth not remain in the house -- to the age, the son doth remain -- to the age;

36if then the son may make you free, in reality ye shall be free.

 

[Winman]

Yes he was....but you said he had to believe or have faith before healing could take place, that God cannot heal without belief..
How did he believe Jesus would call him forth to be healed that day,when he was dead?

also see post 54

The same way he will call all believers out of the grave. Just because you die does not mean you cannot believe, that is the point I have been trying to get across to you.

Dead folks can hear Jesus whether they died saved or not, how do you think Jesus will call the lost out of their graves for the resurrection of damnation?

This is what I have been trying to show you, the spiritually dead have the ability to hear Jesus. The spiritually dead who are physically alive can also believe Jesus, and if they do they shall live (Jn 5:25).

 

[Iconoclast]

Read it again, Jesus did not say a person must sin because they are a servant of sin, he said whosoever commits sin is the servant of sin. You teach exactly opposite of what Jesus taught.

Which comes first, does a person start taking drugs because they are a drug addict, or does a person become a drug addict by first taking drugs?

What comes first is all men are born dead in sin and a servant of sin...then they commit or practice sin, unless and until Jesus sets them free