Free Will Proves The Sovereignty of God

[Revmitchell]

I However, that only works when we are dealing directly with Scriptures and positions rather than persons.

Well then let us all know when you begin.

 

[Iconoclast]

webdog

Just because I don't doesn't mean I can't.

:laugh: sure WD....just because I don't beat Usain Bolt in a 100 yard dash does not me I can't:wavey::laugh:

I have better things to do with my time than to apply the proper hermeneutic to two dozen verses.

I have better things to do with my time also:wavey:

 

[The Biblicist]

Well then let us all know when you begin.

I think most of my posts on this thread deal with scriptures not with making personal attacks. If you think different then all you need is to post the proof.

 

[webdog]

webdog


:laugh: sure WD....just because I don't beat Usain Bolt in a 100 yard dash does not me I can't:wavey:




I have better things to do with my time also:wavey:

I didn't say I was physically incapable. I could cut some time down by posting a creed, confession or commentary to each verse

:wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

Well then let us all know when you begin.

Why not answer the verses he offers....instead of making arrogant statements? Are you short on time like Webdog???:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

I didn't say I was physically incapable. I could cut some time down by posting a creed, confession or commentary to each verse

:wavey:

Try that then...it might be instructive and offer more than the usual drive by postings:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Revmitchell]

I think most of my posts on this thread deal with scriptures not with making personal attacks. If you think different then all you need is to post the proof.

Post number two was nothing but a personal attack and false accusations.

 

[webdog]

Try that then...it might be instructive and offer more than the usual drive by postings:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

Like this post?

I prefer to share my own thoughts and opinions gained through study and not parrot others.

 

[The Biblicist]

There are so many errors in logic and scripture here that it is difficult to know where to start in correcting them.

According to your logic we should never read this in scripture:

"For it IS GOD that worketh IN YOU both TO WILL and TO DO of His Good pleasure." - Philip. 2:13

According to your logic this kind of statement is nothing but coersion and incompatible with your definition of "free will" and ought not to have any place in God's creation.

According to your logic glorified humans should still have the ability to sin freely in the new heaven and earth as the absence between choice A and choice B make God a cosmic chess player who is merely playing the game of life with Himself and so the claims that the new heaven and earth will have NO MORE sorrow, sickness, death, or any of the characteristics of sins forever is unbearable to your way of thinking as it removes choice B from the eternal scenerio of possibilities.

You apparently cannot or do not distinguish between external and internal coercion upon the will nor distinguish the absolute control of nature upon the will.

You apparently have absolutely no use for expressions like "cause him" (Ezek. 36:27) or "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.....18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."in the context of any kind of salvation whether national or individual.

You choose a type of extreme Calvinism that denies compatibility between human responsibility and absolute Divine Sovereignty as a straw man to combat all types which shows your extremely fair and generous disposition.

In essence, your whole theory is but vain human wisdom exalting itself against God and His Word (1 Cor. 1:20-31).



No conflict with man's accountability with God's Sovereignty as in the end God sends forth His Word and accomplishes ALL THAT HE PLEASES in spite of man's resistance to it:

Isa. 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Here is post #2. Where did I make a personal attack upon James? Attacking his POSITION/INTERPRETATION is not attacking his PERSON.

This is the post, Where did I personally attack James?

 

[Revmitchell]

According to your logic we should never read this in scripture:

Personal attack

According to your logic this kind of statement is nothing but coersion and incompatible with your definition of "free will" and ought not to have any place in God's creation.

personal attack

According to your logic glorified humans should still have the ability to sin freely in the new heaven and earth as the absence between choice A and choice B make God a cosmic chess player who is merely playing the game of life with Himself and so the claims that the new heaven and earth will have NO MORE sorrow, sickness, death, or any of the characteristics of sins forever is unbearable to your way of thinking as it removes choice B from the eternal scenerio of possibilities.

personal attack

You apparently have absolutely no use for expressions like "cause him" (Ezek. 36:27) or "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.....18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."in the context of any kind of salvation whether national or individual.

personal attack

In essence, your whole theory is but vain human wisdom exalting itself against God and His Word

Personal attack

 

[RIPP0NWV]

Well then that's it isn't it! Quote 20 verse totally out of their context and just build a conclusion around all of them so that folks will think because you sited 20 verses that wallah that supports the conclusion without the possibility that each one of those verses has an entirely different meaning than what you gave it.

There is no purpose in going verse by verse with you. You take individual verses out of context as a basis, then match your concept of a half powerful God.

Did God need man's help to create the universe? Did God need man to achieve the status of omniscient? Does God need man to help Him carry out his purposes? Does God need man to carry out His plan of salvation?

Have you actually read the Gospels?

 

[The Biblicist]

Personal attack




personal attack



personal attack




personal attack




Personal attack

"according to you logic" is not a personal attack at all but an evaluation and summary of the logic being used by James to defend his position according to my perpsective.

Your final example is not a personal attack either as I expressly state it is his "POSITION" that I am attacking NOT HIS PERSON.

If we defined "personal attack" the way you are doing here then we could never attack the position or intepretation of anyone we disagree with. We could never evaluate their process of logic.

Here is an example of an personal attack "All you Cal's are egotisical proud arrrogant people" - that is a personal attack.

 

[preacher4truth]

Why not answer the verses he offers....instead of making arrogant statements? Are you short on time like Webdog???:thumbs::thumbs:

Please point me to any post he's made using a Scripturally based argument. All I've seen to date are one-liner quips meant to inflame others. :thumbs:

 

[preacher4truth]

Try that then...it might be instructive and offer more than the usual drive by postings:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

Well, that would be a change of pace for wd to actually crack open Scripture and use it in debate. :type:

 

[Revmitchell]

"according to you logic" is not a personal attack at all but an evaluation and summary of the logic being used by James to defend his position according to my perpsective.

Your final example is not a personal attack either as I expressly state it is his "POSITION" that I am attacking NOT HIS PERSON.

If we defined "personal attack" the way you are doing here then we could never attack the position or intepretation of anyone we disagree with. We could never evaluate their process of logic.

Here is an example of an personal attack "All you Cal's are egotisical proud arrrogant people" - that is a personal attack.

You should never "attack" any person or position. That is what the problem is. There is a distinct difference between refuting and attacking.

It is arrogant and childish to assert what someone's logic is. And it is an attack on that person. Of which you never get right anyway. There are plenty of other options beside just what you assert. You cannot know what anyone's logic is unless they tell you.

 

[Monster]

This more of a curiosity and not intended as a "set-up" or cheap debate tactic, you'll just have to "trust" me on this. raying:

So here goes;

Isn't it possible that both sides and whatever resides in between are cherry-picking scriptures to promote a point of view or an agenda? Much like a hiker at the base a huge mountain range, looking with limited perspective at only what's in front of them, or more aptly, where they chose to go and stating that, "This before me IS the mountain-entire".

Somehow the awesome, incomprehensible splendor that is God, revealed through His Word is being missed by "our" proximity to the very limited bits and pieces we're able to view and understand at any one time. We're finite specs assuming we can comprehend the infinite, how wonderfully amusing we must be.

I mean really, how much do any one of us actually understand about the God of the Bible and His limits? Some? Most? All?

Theology is wonderful, exciting, educational and important, BUT it is (after all the labels we can attach to it) simply our meager striving to define the infinite with our limited definitions.

Cals seem to limit Him to the space that exists within five theological coordinates. Does God agree to those conditions? Is He truly defined then? His work, His power, His omniscience, His character?

The Free-willers limit Him (or maybe more aptly His ability to work) to the space that exists between their hearts and heads. Is God in any way subject to His creation?

I hope I never reach the point in my life when I no longer find God revealing Himself to me in a fresh new way via His Word. How boring and disheartening it would be to find myself at the point where I know it all. :tonofbricks:

 

[preacher4truth]

You should never "attack" any person or position. That is what the problem is. There is a distinct difference between refuting and attacking.

It is arrogant and childish to assert what someone's logic is. And it is an attack on that person. Of which you never get right anyway. There are plenty of other options beside just what you assert. You cannot know what anyone's logic is unless they tell you.

You describe yourself perfectly here in all your attacks on the Calvinists on this board. Congrats!!! :wavey:

 

[webdog]

Well, that would be a change of pace for wd to actually crack open Scripture and use it in debate. :type:

Have you seen anyone about the beam in your eye yet?

Here's one 'pastor'... "The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome..."

 

[Van]

Shuck and jive

So you are admitting that God can decree all things by permission (evil) or good pleasure?

Do you have something to say, or do you just ask questions implying falsehood. Deception is your hallmark.

1) Could God decree all things, whatsoever comes to pass? Yes.

2) Does the Bible teach God decreed all things, whatsoever comes to pass? No.

Did you see an answer to my question? No. Calvinists just shuck and jive, peddling falsehoods one after another. They ask questions of others, but do not answer the questions of others. Hardly biblical behavior.

Again and again the same fallacy is put forth. Since the Bible teaches God does predestine some things, that means God predestines everything, according to His decree, rather than allowing men to make some choices that alter the outcome of their lives. They turn we make plans but God directs our feet into God makes our plans and directs our feet. Not how it reads.

Calvinism requires a wholesale rewrite of scripture.

 

[The Biblicist]

You should never "attack" any person or position. That is what the problem is. There is a distinct difference between refuting and attacking.

A refutation of a position is an attack upon its accuracy and relevance.

It is arrogant and childish to assert what someone's logic is.

Now, here is an example of a personal attack. Degrading terms directly applied to a poster.

And it is an attack on that person.

No it is not! It is simply a summary evaluation of his logic from my perspective.

You cannot know what anyone's logic is unless they tell you.

That is simply not true! You can evaluate the logic of anyone by the way they approach, present and defend and explain their position.

I don't think there is anyway not to personally offend you if one dares to disagree with your interpretations and tell you why.

Shall we agree to disagree and lets go on with the OP.