Robots in heaven?

Oh come now....


you are watching football...right?

Just kidding...take your time


In Christ..James

 

I bet you thought I forgot about this thread, huh:laugh: uh... I did :laugh:

It is an obvious answer and one I am fully willing to give in light of the fact that God used other people each time pursuade the attitude in him already there and that God knew was neccesary to complete His will. God did not Himself change Pharohs heart but used means to do so.

Now Jarthur, I know you are not going to seriously contend you knew the mind of the King of Gog, are you? But the same principle applies here as it does in the previous quote and answer.

Ok, let's follow this...God decrees all things (and all includes sin) unless of course All doesn't mean All. Since this is your quote and note the bibles what is your definition of all?

If by bias you mean anything I see non or extra-biblical then yes I have a bias and it will take truth only to remove it.


John Calvin? Who is he?

Good to hear >>>EDITED<<<. However I know you do not follow Calvin, what I was stating is simply: He who created the very system of theology you hold did not hold to one applicable piece and that being limited atonement. (I did not say election but the attonement that was made for all) and as I said it was only a side bar.

 

First off, when did I ever state God must not limit mans free will?
Second, I believe God compels man, but does not take control of man. God compels men, Jesus compels men, the Holy Spirit compels men, and Peter and Paul compelled men, but not one them (God that is) takes control of man and makes man do something.

No, on the contrary, it proves that God can work within any means, to accomplish His plan WITHOUT having to puppetize anyone. That is sovereignty!

Still have not shown this in any manner applicable to your accertion. NOTE: I did not say it isn't in scripture, I simply said not here.

Nope, as afore mentioned, the same answer from quote and answer above

Abimelech was lied to and decieved. The reasons God did not kill him (as He did tell you..."your a dead man" it's because first he was innocent of wrong and given the opportunity, (knowing the truth) would have let her go (we see his ability to choose when God tells him if he did not he WOULD be a dead man)
Secondly, God HAD to intervene otherwise His promised seed THROUGH Abraham would never have come to pass. God had to step into man affairs (as He knew He would have to) to undue Abrahams bungle. But He never MADE as in controled Abimelech. We only know God did not permit him touch (as in intimate) her, and thus consumate the marriage. How did He do this *shrug* anything more than this is conjecture.
Third point is that Adam was not lied to but willingly rebelled against God, within the confines of what he knew. God did not intervene since Adam was responcible for his choice, having full concept of truth.

Satan, the same answer as with Adam.

Same as with Adam, Though the are decieved in their religeous understanding still truth by which they are held accountable to, such as in their own religion, you can not murder (even in war) innocents. By there own religious laws they are condemend.

 

Balaam was a prophet who knew the one true God but was also money lover. However these verses are simply declaring that the message is TO BE delivered not that He had no choice in delivering it. Same as Jerimiah (...a fire in my bones...) even messages I preach are definately very important I know that if I will be faithful I must preach them. Which brings this point home, He was already submitted to the Lord and therefore he could not do anything less than what God asks of him. His will was not frustrated for he told the princes willingly, what was frustrated was his lust.

Balaams resposbibility remained intact because he acted accordlying with Gods request.

 

You just made God a sinner by stating the reason one sins is because God uses sin to draw man towards his lust. God is the first means of mans sin. God is the pro-active one DRAWING men in to sin using their lust. No different then putting an apple tied to a string (on the end of a stick) and putting it in front of his (the pony) face and leading him where you want him. The horse NEVER would have gone if someone did not temp him to go (sin) GOD TEMPTS NNE WITH SIN.

I would have stated earlier that I might have misunderstood you except that you continue to you state in diffent patters the same arguement. Again, God does not use sin to draw man away toward his lust, as in the pony illistration above.

God does not control sinners or saints as in the great puppet master. If God is the first cause (as in salvation) then God is the reason they sin and therefore is the first to sin in this scene.

Dude, They are already servents of God and therefore (if true servents) surrendered and willing to be used by God from the outset. It was their freedom that allowed God to used them

Pure conjectur and no where revealed in scripture as such, but I would say none the less via conjecture, pretty darn accurate.

This part is pure scripture and thereby I can only say Amen! Since they were men of God submitted and willing for God to use them.

 

This is a very misleading analogy, as he did not recieve his temper from his dad. It can be anything from a chemical imbalance, mental instability, and or phycalogical problems that escalate violent or physical outburst. I am simply saying this analogy falls vastly short in trying state you argument. Adam said the same thing to Eve in the Garden, *Adam pointed to the woman and said* "She did it." Adam was still responsible.

Yes, to this I agree but it is something that can be controlled and eventually eleminated even without help from another, in most cases >>>EDITED<<<.

Yes, he is responsible, but now let us understand what responsible entails:
It is having the ability to take action for that which you are responsible for: You CAN NOT have responsibility apart from ability: why? Look:

Man is responsible (we both agree) but the difference is those who share your theological bent claim man does not have the ability to chose God. (Now I will qualify this with, even if God enlightens (via the word) and calls them without effectually doing these)
Definition of RESPONSIBLE (adj)-
1. Liable to be required to give account, as of ones actions or of the discharge of a duty or trust.
2. Involving personal accountability or ABILITY to act without guidance or superior authority
3. BEING a SOURCE or CAUSE
4. ABLE to make moral or rational decisions on one’s OWN and THEREFORE answerable for ones’s behavior
5. ABLE to choose for oneself between right and wrong

Definition of ABILITY (n)
1. the quality of being able to perform: a quality that permits of facilititates achievement or accomplishments.
2. POSSESSION of the QUALITIES REQUIRED to do something or get something done.

As I’m sure you will notice that Ability is a noun and Responsibility is an adjective (thus denoting of itself inherent ability) Responsibility is the action one takes and ability is the quality of that action taken, so by Responsibles very definition ability is not only apparent but mandated. Its’ very definition ascribes inherent ability for the action to be taken. So if God has given man the responsibility to choose salvation but the in-ability to do so on his own, you must then state his God given “responsibility” is a farse. Why? Because as stated over and over Responsiblity is contengent on your ability . You can not have responsibility apart from ability

Agreed and that help is offered to all men especially those who believe.

God did not give us a sin nature, we CHOSE it for ourselves. You have even stated man (Adam) chose to rebel in the Garden. What transpired came from our earthly father, which is a darkened nature outside the life of God.

But Jesus has come to set the captive free...If any of you are weary and heavy ladened come unto me and I will give you rest. That you be not filled (controlled) with wine (not even going there... back...back I say :laugh: ) but be filled (controled) with the Spirit... Be Filled/controled with the Holy Spirit that you not fulfill the lust (in the flesh) there of.

Yep, I agree. A man chooses the large or narrow road, the Lord helps him get there where he wants to go.

Agreed !

 

Man Jarthur,
Are you trying to break my fingers :laugh:

 

Allan

Indeed. This is how God controls men, for He knows there heart and limits there choices. I should say...one of the main ways He does this. So then we have God saying He harden Pharohs heart.

Romans 9

Thus...God in control....
***********

As it turns out, It is my feeling the King of Gog has not done this, and maybe not even born. It also needs to be known, I need not know the Kings heart. God decreed that He will PULL the nation down. But once again, not that I need to know, but in this case God does tell us the kings heart....and as it turns out this evil thought was decreed by God.

The case above. When the thought is changed into lust by the sin in your heart, it is sin.

Does God lead us as saints? I'm sure you will say yes. Then why did Christ pray, and tell us we should pary, "lead us NOT into temptation".
The point of James is that the lust in your heart is what pulls you and tempts you. This is why some can walk by a object and not be tempted and others are tempted. It is not the object that tempts it is the sin in the heart. Likewise the King of Gog.

I have already seen you change the words of the Bible. I have seen you "fix" the context. Lets see if you will change these words.

<<<<<EDIT>>>>> Remove the word "words"..for right off hand I know of no word you have changed. Sorry


Good to hear >>>EDITED<<<. However I know you do not follow Calvin, what I was stating is simply: He who created the very system of theology you hold did not hold to one applicable piece and that being limited atonement. (I did not say election but the attonement that was made for all) and as I said it was only a side bar.
I do not have time this morning, but Calvin did not come up with this. It comes from God. I will gladly show this later when I have time.

Got to go to work....


In Christ....James

BTW....I enjoy this exchange. Thanks for your reply. I may not get back to this till late tonight. I have much writing ahead.

 

You made the statement now prove it.

Show me where I "fix" context? (historically viewed, and scholarly/commentarily upheld context, might help clear the dust on this comment) Now we have the problem of it being veiwed through theological bent views that can both make claims to the same passages. Now proving this becomes even harder. But still plausable.

I find your accusation, quite troubling and problematic as in each instance you have given claimant objection, I have give refutation (to your view) and analytical observation with never a word (from you) of improper use, much less to [willingly] misuse and misconstrue context.

Are you (for clarification) implying such?

 

Hello Allan,

I'm not sure you ever did state this. My statement was address the the common free-willer side. The point of the many post was to prove that God does step in and limits mans will. If God does this in anyway, this is in fact part of Gods nature. This can be seen as good or bad. If mans will is limited even in a small way, it is bound and not free.

The passage we are talking about is beyond compelling.

chasak means to withhold, restrain, hold back, keep in check, refrain.

Puppet? I thought we were robots? It seems like this is your driving point. If I'm wrong, forgive me. You hate to see any verses saying God controls you. You will fight to the end, so to speak, in order to show other wise. Allan, there is no base to build a "means" to compel the man. In this case God withheld mans lust to sin. It's really not a bad thing to say God is in full control. Man still has a WILL. I do not think we are robots, puppets what have ya. You see it one way or the other. We will see if I can state my case.

The verses are there. If you remove you training, it is clear. Just read the words, with no meaning other then the context.

It does not matter. People lie to me all the time. I cannot turn and sin, and then tell God.."well he lied to me". No...I must answer for my own actions. God did step in to WITHHOLD the sin. This is not freewill.

1st..the word used means "hold back". 2nd..This is one reason WHY. We could list others WHY. The point still remains. God DID.

Satan did not lie to Eve? Most would say he did lie to Eve. But still the point remains. God placed the tree in the garden. God knew Adam would sin. God allowed it, when God did not allow Abimelech. Why? God has a plan...God can do as He pleases...God is in control.

And the same reply from me. But it may be added. Satan will not be redeemed. Never. Why? God can do as He pleases.

Paul was decieved and God stop him and changed him. I was decieved. As it turns out...we all are. (( No man seeks after God)) Why? God can do as He pleases.



In Christ...James

 

It did not remain intact for this reason. It was not a request by God. God was behind this all the time. God said do not do this thing(decree). The money was on the table and Balaam said..ok lets sleep on it. What was there to sleep on? God said NO. Balaam went anyway. God was ANGRY that he went. God took over from there on out. He blocked the way..and put words in his mouth. God is very much in control here.

Balak sent for this heathen prophet to "curse" Israel. A handsome reward was offered for his services, and a careful reading of Numbers 22-24 will show that Balaam was willing, and anxious, to accept Balak’s offer and sin against God and His people.

But God "withheld" him. His own words....
"And Balaam said unto Balak, Lo, I am come unto thee: have I now any power at all to say anything? the word that God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak" (Num. 22:38).

Again, after Balak had remonstrated with Balaam, we read...
"He answered and said, Must I not take heed to speak that which the Lord hath put in my mouth? . . . Behold, I have received commandment to bless: and He hath blessed; and I cannot reverse it"

He want to curse and COULD NOT. Why? God put other words in his mouth. That is what it says. Its not twisting...just plain context. agree?


In Christ...James

 

Hello Allan...

I agee with the apple. Place the apple in front of a duck. The duck will not come, for it is not the nature of a duck to eat a apple. The horse will come for it is his nature. It is the nature of the horse that draws him, not the apple. The sin nature of man is what controls man, not the apple. Adam ate the "apple" for He wanted to be as God, knowing good from evil. The apple would have done nothing to him, if Adam had not this lust for control. no?

If you understand me at all, tell me what I said, for I do not understand myself most of the time.

Not puppets...robots man. You say I can't have it both ways. I say this is Gods way...and some how it works. Not puppets...not robots. But...God in control.

That would be Sir Dude. If your point is, that God can control men after salvation...I will agree. But why do you limit God before salvation. If Man has freewill to come to God, does he not have freewill to leave? At some point we all must say mans will is not free. I place God in full control at all times. You have Him in control only after man says OK. What have you done to the power of God? God must "wait" on man? I do not think so. The Bible says other wise.

i agree..

And Paul? And Luke? And others not looking for God...yet God saving them?

 

Hello Allan,

Humm

And who caused the chemical imbalance?
Who caused the mental instability?
Where did they get the phycalogical problems?

I am simply saying you have not traced all things back to God.

The last part about Adam..I agree. Thus my point. No matter what state we find ourself in..we are still responsible.

I agree and this is why both Gods control works with ....mans responsibilty.

Man has the power in his body to control his body and actions.

Yet man has not the power to control his will. Mans will is controled by his sin nature or by God. By the flesh or by the Spirit.

 

i don't think we would be robots in heaven, just humans without much of a choice. I mean it would be like that one story about the rich guy asking his wife to marry him, you know the story...

 

Sorry for not answering these in a timely manner. I have been on here but only spottingly and wanted to address these with do attention and not flippantly. :sleep:

Let me state this, I am not a common freewiller, (those who beleive man can choose to seek God when they want to). I do beleive that God can intervene in the life and situations of man and mankind. What I do not find taught or insinuated in the scripture is that God takes possession of a man and makes man do something that man would not have done of his own volition and choosing. God has differing means including using His finger to write on walls, speaking through an ass (which btw is not the same as speaking through a man by possession) AND your right this is about robots not puppets, my bad :tongue3:

I understand this and agree with the lexical meaning but specifically with the verb tense to which restain is applicable.
This is a Qal-imperfect tense
1a) It is used to describe a single (as opposed to a repeated) action
in the past; it differs from the perfect in being more vivid and
pictorial. The perfect expresses the "fact", the imperfect adds
colour and movement by suggesting the "process" preliminary to its
completion.

It shows the verb tense defining a process that leads up to and incorperates the verb form of restrain. Simply put: God did not TAKE CONTROL (single act of fact) of him but through a process restrained him. What is that process, *shrug* we can only speculate and conjecture but we know He did not take and posses him to RESTRAIN him. We do know and I will agree, that it WAS God who initiated the restraining and thus limited the options he had.

No it is not what I believe, and I forgive you. :thumbsup: I beleive that God can and does limit man at time but I do not beleive God takes control of man (possess) as you speculate.

Now you are interjecting something INTO scripture that IS NOT there. There was no lust to sin on Abimelech side and God even states this by saying "...in the ingrety of your heart..." Abimelechs only possible sin that would be accounted to him is to violate Gods decreed promise that Sarahs first born of Abraham was to bring forth a people and thereafter a redeemer. We know this because God states in the same verse qualifying why He restrained Abimelech "...not to touch (to lie with her - Hebrew lexicon) her." >>>EDITED<<< When I speak of Abimelech to sin I am refering to your lust to sin in meaning.

Jhn 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind (did not know), ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
I added for clarificaiton. Abimelech was not considered sinning because he had no clue he did wrong and therefore it was not sin unto him.

You are placing assumtion into our conversation now. Remove my "training"? I have had no training against your veiw. I have had training that institutes all those fancy 10 dollar words we get to use in Christrian collages but I find they do not help others who read or listen to our conversation in their spiritual growth and faith. So I try to keep it simple (though long winded :laugh: ) I have read it, reveiwed it, analyzed it, and commentaried it, and still do not see what you are implying it to hold. Try another one.

Already dealt with this issue. If you do not know something is sin, it is not accounted to you as sin. Now if God withheld Abimelech from sin as YOU claim - He was enept as Abimelech married a married woman and therefore sinned against God. As I claim, it was not sin to him because as God said it was done in the integrity of his heart...Therefore I KEPT you from sinning by not allowing you to touch her. (paraphrase)

YOu are correct there concerning explictness. Satan did not lie (though the implication is there concerning his desire to mislead) but decieved (explicitly he did this) Why did God not allow Abimelech, because when common sense makes sense seek no other sense, that being Abimelechs sin would have negated Gods plan for a promised people and Messiah. Also Abimelech would not have taken her to wife IF he would have known the truth.

There is much more to it than that abstract notion. He does not do as He pleases without reason and His reason for Satan not given a chance for salvation is found in scripture.

Paul had the option of obeying, and did so, as did you. God did not make man to not seek after Him. Man choose to be seperate from God which is both light and life within man. Due to our choice we seek not after God because in our sin state we don't even realize we are lost. God takes no pleasure in this.

 

Ok, for the sake of time I can just as easily hold to it NOT being a request (as in do what you think best) but a command. Now with that said God did not force Balaam to do it, like some hijacked robot. We see this NOWHERE concerning Balaam. God said do not do this thing (statement regarding what Balaam was considering) If it were a decree that should have ended all discussion and God need not say anymore, unless God is like you and me and just can stop talking. :laugh: I have read this story now (just so you know) 6 times, ( should have read it 7 so it would be perfect, hehehe) but there is NO place where God take control of Balaam, but I do see with crystal clarity that Balaam after the ass incident humbly submits himself to whatever God wants him to do. Thus the angel stating I will tell what you will tell them. When Balaam states he has no power, IS NOT a reference to God possession of his body or mouth but that he will only do what God has told him to do. You forget to add to your contextual view here that Balaam is a believer (not a good one, but a believer all the same) and therefore follows what he knows God desires of him.

Would you say that if God gives you a message to preach or a study to teach that when you get up to speak God takes full control of you. Of course not!

I will ask this though; Do you consider be filled with the Holy Ghost (biblical view) the same as being God taking over man? Especially since it refers to...be not controled with wine but controled with the Holy Spirit.

No I do not, as you over look the plain text. He did want to curse, why didn't he? Simple, he asked God to curse and God said no. The issue concerning the cursing and blessing rests with God and since Balaam sought God and was a servant of God, he could only proclaim what God said He would do. The words in his mouth does not mean that this was God over riding Balaams ability to speak. That is completely outside the context of these passages. I do agree Gods word was in his mouth to be spoken, but because he was willing to give it. Can someone not say what God gives them, OF course - Jonah is a good example.

 

Yes and no. The sin nature does not control man as though man can not do any good or righteousness. We know that he can, he just can not do any without sin tainting it and making it unworthy before God as anything salvic but filthy. We see scripture speak of these things, such as... Mans righteousness is as filthy rags. Man can do good but it is tainted with sin. Even Jesus spoke stating would a father give his hungry children a snake instead of bread. Man is capable of good but not in any sense of the word salvic.

You also place a falicious statement here as well, You place Adam sinning before Adam ever having sinned. You state Adam lusted... If one lusts after something, one is in sin. We read no where in scripture the sin of Adam was lust for control. God rebuked Adam not for lusting for control but for his willful act of rebellion by following his wife rather than God (Gen 3:17).

My statement to yours: You just made God a sinner by stating...God uses sin to draw man towards his lust. God is the first means of mans sin. God is the pro-active one DRAWING men in to sin using their lust.
It is exactly the same as Satan tempting Christ. Now is it temptation is one is not tempted, and can scripture true when it states He was tempted in all points yet without sin.
Now according to you man can only sin if he is tempted of his lust, can we postulate that Jesus lusted for food, power, adoration. Lust is a sin and by your standards Jesus was a sinner. I know I am not correctly giving your view so I ask you to clarify this, please.

. COncerning my quote:

I understand you view this being Gods way, you just have yet to show scripturally that it is as YOU say. But I will always agree God is in control - we just view His control differently yet still soveriegnly

Who said Paul was not looking for God? Paul was one of the most religious and did what he did to the church believing he was doing for God. When God revealed Himself, Paul knew it was God but still asked LORD, who are you. Then God revealed that He is that one Paul was persecuting. I see no reason to assume Paul wouldn't have run to the arms of the God he was trying diligently serve.
Concerning Luke: I see no scripture to gives an account of Lukes salvation. I may be missing something (and it is possible :smilewinkgrin: ) Please share this with me.
I know of no one who not looking for God finds Him. Scripture says those who seek me, find me. Did God lie?

 

Jarthor

:type: You going to kill with all this, you know that right? :laugh: :laugh:

 

Sin caused each of these as it entered into nature and man distorting the glory in which it was created.
Sin CAN NOT be traced back to God, it is traced back to mans rebellion in the Garden.
Please tell me, you are not trying to state this all goes back to God, (as in God is the first cause of all things, therefore all things proceed from God - this includes sin)

Uh...one small problem here though. Adam knew what he was doing was wrong, thus he is held accountable. I delt with this in an earlier posting.

Yet man does have the power to make choices and the will/desire is involved though sadly impaired.
God does not control mans will and you have not shown any contextual support of this. I am still open to seeing it, IF it is there and not with regard to a theologically opinion of a text. And yes I do look carefully at what you show so I can see (outside my own view) if it truly is in the text and not eisegsised into it.

The whole by the flesh or by the Spirit is a clear rendering in context from Rom of the BELIEVER and not a non-beleiver. You can only be controlled (possessed) by the Spirit if you are a beleiver who is a possession of his God.

 

Actually...ummm... I don't know that story.
Care to share? :smilewinkgrin:

But to your statement:
We will have all the choices in the world, but we will desire to be with Jesus and praise him, the one who loved us, when we hated him. Robots? No, not in heaven, we will finally be free to do free what we will desire most (love, glorify, and magnify Jesus our Saviour and God) We will do many other things and many responsiblities but like marriage we will yearn to be with the one we love most.