Where Does Believing Faith Come From

[OldRegular]

And it is plain dumb on the face of it. Do you think God is honored by people who are puppets or robots? They do not love him because they choose to, they are literally forced to. That would be a counterfeit love, it would not be genuine at all. If I can understand this, do you not think God can understand this?

Actually it is the unregenerate man who is a robot or puppet. They are a puppet of Satan, in bondage to sin.

John 8:34-36 [KJV}
34. Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
35. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
36. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

Again you appear to be completely ignorant of what happens when a person is regenerated or born again by the Holy Spirit. It is only then that we are truly free and not in bondage to sin.

 

[Havensdad]

ANYTHING that has an if/then parameter is bound by the nature of the linear timeline. God is not limited by such, because God's existence is not bound by a linear timeline.

Not so. Something can be if/then, and bound by only by a logical progression, without regards to time. If God does not have a logical progression of thoughts, in which He makes free will decisions, then He is nothing but some impersonal force.

What you are trying to teach, is Deism.

 

[Havensdad]

No it does not say that. I already addressed this misunderstaning of yours and you made no comment other than to quote two verses which I then explained to you.

And you are wrong. This sentence plainly teaches that those drawn are saved. You can "explain that away" all you like, but that is what it actually says.

 

[Johnv]

Something can be if/then, and bound by only by a logical progression, without regards to time.

Progression of any type is by nature temporally bound.

If God does not have a logical progression of thoughts, in which He makes free will decisions, then He is nothing but some impersonal force.

Again, the decision making process as we understand it is not something that is akin to an omnipotent and omniscient God. God has no need to go through the decision making process. He has no need to weight the options or give consideration to outcomes. This is inconsistent with God's nature.

What you are trying to teach, is Deism.

Where the heck did that come from? That's a bit of stretch to support your position. In reality, you're trying to teach that God is not omnipotent ot omniscient.

 

[webdog]

Not so. Something can be if/then, and bound by only by a logical progression, without regards to time. If God does not have a logical progression of thoughts, in which He makes free will decisions, then He is nothing but some impersonal force.

What you are trying to teach, is Deism.

Logical progressions are only found in the scope of time, so that statement is an oxymoron of sorts. If God does have a logical progression of thoughts and decisions outside of time, He would remain in time. I believe the way God deals with us in the scope of time is a mystery, but I would not state He needs to make logical progression of thoughts. That minimizes omniscience.

 

[Havensdad]

Progression of any type is by nature temporally bound./quote]

No it is not. You cannot show this logically. Progression can be logical, but be completely free from constraints of time.

Again, the decision making process as we understand it is not something that is akin to an omnipotent and omniscient God. God has no need to go through the decision making process. He has no need to weight the options or give consideration to outcomes. This is inconsistent with God's nature.

God chooses. He makes choices. Scripture declares this THROUGHOUT the Bible. So either those choices are free, or they are not. If they are free choices, then He has free will. If they are not, he does not have free will.

That simple.

Where the heck did that come from? That's a bit of stretch to support your position. In reality, you're trying to teach that God is not omnipotent ot omniscient.

Not at all. God can make free will choices, and be 100 percent omnipotent and omniscient. Good thing, too, since the Bible declares all three to be true.

To deny that God interacts in time, and makes choices, is to affirm Deism: that God is "far off" and does not interact with His people.

 

[Havensdad]

Logical progressions are only found in the scope of time, so that statement is an oxymoron of sorts. If God does have a logical progression of thoughts and decisions outside of time, He would remain in time. I believe the way God deals with us in the scope of time is a mystery, but I would not state He needs to make logical progression of thoughts. That minimizes omniscience.

Without a logical progression of thoughts, their is nothing but chaos. To affirm that God does not have a logical progression of thoughts ("I am going to do this, so that this, so that this"), is to either affirm His non-existence, Deistic nature, or to say that He is just some kind of chaotic supernatural force.

HOW this can be possible, is indeed a mystery, but at LEAST this much must be true: God has free will, thought, and makes choices.

 

[BaptistBob]

And you are wrong. This sentence plainly teaches that those drawn are saved. You can "explain that away" all you like, but that is what it actually says.

I'm not explaining away; you are. You made a claim and provided a verse that did not say what you claimed. Now, you either have proof or you do not. At this time it appears you do not, since there has been no response (other than posturing) to what I said.

I'm still waiting.......

 

[Havensdad]

I'm not explaining away; you are. You made a claim and provided a verse that did not say what you claimed. Now, you either have proof or you do not. At this time it appears you do not, since there has been no responce (other than posturing) to what I said.

I'm still waiting.......

I must have missed it. Every time I make a response, I have 4 different people responding, rather than the person who asked the question.

But "I am going to bring some cattle and slaughter them for food", means that the ones I am bringing, are being slaughtered for food, without exception. In order for that sentence to be conditional, it would have to have the word "some" or "many" after "and". It does not, so it is a direct correlative statement: those drawn, are raised.

 

[BaptistBob]

I must have missed it. Every time I make a response, I have 4 different people responding, rather than the person who asked the question.

But "I am going to bring some cattle and slaughter them for food", means that the ones I am bringing, are being slaughtered for food, without exception. In order for that sentence to be conditional, it would have to have the word "some" or "many" after "and". It does not, so it is a direct correlative statement: those drawn, are raised.

Again, what verse uses"drawn" that way? Please do not qoute a verse that uses a different word. If you do, then please read my post from yesterday first.

Again, I am asking you to provide the verse that says what you claimed.

 

[Havensdad]

Again, what verse uses"drawn" that way? Please do not qoute a verse that uses a different word. If you do, then please read my post from yesterday first.

Again, I am asking you to provide the verse that says what you claimed.

Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

 

[BaptistBob]

Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

It doesn't say what you claimed. It says they must be drawn. Where is the verse that says that all the drawn come? Now, before you get too excited, remember that I said that the Father draws through his teaching.

 

[Havensdad]

Joh 6:44 ουδεις(NNE) δυναται (IS ABLE: HAS THE POWER)ελθειν (come)προς(to) με(me) εαν(unless: a conditional particle) μη(Negation, NOT. In the Greek, this double negative is for emphasis) ο(the) πατηρ(father) ο πεμψας (who has sent) με (me) ελκυση (drags) αυτον(him) και (and, also)εγω (I)αναστησω (will raise) αυτον (him, the one who is drawn) εν (on)τη(the) εσχατη(last) ημερα (day)


An equally valid translation...

"No one is capable of coming to me, unless the Father who sent me drags him, and that man(the one who has been dragged), I will raise up on the last day.

If the father draws you, Christ saves you.

 

[webdog]

Without a logical progression of thoughts, their is nothing but chaos. To affirm that God does not have a logical progression of thoughts ("I am going to do this, so that this, so that this"), is to either affirm His non-existence, Deistic nature, or to say that He is just some kind of chaotic supernatural force.

HOW this can be possible, is indeed a mystery, but at LEAST this much must be true: God has free will, thought, and makes choices.

To finite beings it may seem like chaos, but to me existing in all points in time in all locations at the same time seems like chaos as well. I'm not going to fit God into my theological box. God has free will, thought and makes choices (even changes His mind) when dealing with man within the confines of time...and that is the mystery.

 

[Havensdad]

It doesn't say what you claimed. It says they must be drawn. Where is the verse that says that all the drawn come? Now, before you get too excited, remember that I said that the Father draws through his teaching.

It DOES NOT say they "must be drawn in order to come". This statement is not conditional. It says that the ones who are drug by the father, will be raised. "Kai" cannot mean "Some".

 

[Havensdad]

To finite beings it may seem like chaos, but to me existing in all points in time in all locations at the same time seems like chaos as well. I'm not going to fit God into my theological box. God has free will, thought and makes choices (even changes His mind) when dealing with man within the confines of time...and that is the mystery.

John does not agree. He said that God does not have free will. You have said basically the same thing I have said, you are just expressing it in a different way.

 

[Johnv]

This is where you're wrong. Webdog is referring to a perception of God having free will when dealing with man within the confines of time. Webdog says he refuses to fit God into a theological box, and accepts that the aforementioned perception is the mystery. I concur with Webdog there, and don't appreciate you trying to play us between each other.

 

[Havensdad]

This is where you're wrong. Webdog is referring to a perception of God having free will when dealing with man within the confines of time. Webdog says he refuses to fit God into a theological box, and accepts that the aforementioned perception is the mystery. I concur with Webdog there, and don't appreciate you trying to play us between each other.

I am not trying to "Play anything", and I am offended by the inference. I stated that God has free will, and you objected to me. That means you believe God DOES NOT have free will: else why the objection?

As far as the "confines of time" condition, that is really a non-issue in the way that we are looking at it here. If He has "Free will in dealing with men in the Confines of time", then He has free will for the sake of what we are talking about here.

Either God has free will, and He does what He wants, or he does not have free will, and therefore does not do what he wants.

 

[BaptistBob]

It DOES NOT say they "must be drawn in order to come". This statement is not conditional.

Joh 6:44 ουδεις(NNE) δυναται (IS ABLE: HAS THE POWER)ελθειν (come)προς(to) με(me) εαν(unless: a conditional particle)

Come out with your hands raised above your head. You've got yourself surrounded.

"Kai" cannot mean "Some".

I didn't say the conjunction served that purpose. I didn't mention it at all.

 

[Johnv]

Again, Havensdad, you're dealing with thinking along the line of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" or "can God create a rock so big that he can't move it".