Free will. What is it?

[Eternally-Grateful]

Not a bad idea, but one problem. The one guy, @Eternally-Grateful , has said that the will is not autonomous, and that faith comes from God —even has said that he is not a synergist— yet his main disagreement with me is by his consideration of my claims of regeneration coming before repentance, submission etc, as fallacious, because, to his mind, regeneration is still necessarily something the person calls upon God for, as a result of faith.

I'm saying that I think he would agree with what you have said so far. But not what you think it implies.

Please, @Eternally-Grateful , if you would, correct me on this, or restate it.

I will look at it here in a few when I get some time. I do not just want to glance over it.. I will get back to you

I will make one correction.

I believe we are dead in sin. and we can not be made alive until that penalty is removed.

Hence justification (made right with God) must precede regeneration.

That is my issue Not so much that we must call out for it.. I have witnessed people who while Our heads were bowed receive Christ. and I saw an amazing change in them in the days weeks and years ahead. so I know it was sincere.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

This makes me sick inside, and it's probably why I do not like fatalistic thinking when it comes to Gods sovereignty.

God purposed or planned the fall of mankind and all the evil and hardship and pain and suffering?

I can not even fathom a God that would even think of this.

And yet:

Ephesians 1:4, "For he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world that we may be holy and unblemished in his sight in love." Salvation was planned before creation and Christ was the central means by which this plan would be fulfilled.

Hebrews 10:5-7, "So when he came into the world, he said, ‘Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me. Whole burnt offerings and sin-offerings you took no delight in. Then I said, Here I am: I have come—it is written of me in the scroll of the book—to do your will, O God’.” Christ entered the world with a preordained mission.

2 Timothy 1:9-10, "He is the one who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not based on our works but on his own purpose and grace, granted to us in Christ Jesus before time began, but now made visible through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus." God's purpose and grace was granted to us in Christ before time began, denoting that Christ's atonement was purposed in eternity past.

1 Peter 1:20, "[Christ] was foreknown [προεγνωσμένος] before the foundation of the world but was manifested in these last times for your sake." This Greek term denotes a predetermined purpose; Christ was foreordained to be our redeemer before creation.

Revelation 13:8, "And all those who live on the earth will worship the beast, everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain." This verse can also be translated as "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." In either case, it indicates that his sacrificial death was decreed from eternity past.

And so on.

Reformed theology is satisfying because it makes sense of what God tells us in his word—satisfying for those who set themselves aside to trust God.

If God is guilty ...

Who would dare to judge God? Man?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

I have a proposal that I'm submitting to the community for engaged feedback:

• Rather than talking about whether the human will is free—a horribly ambiguous term—we should talk about whether it is autonomous.

By framing the issue in terms of human autonomy, the theological and philosophical focus is clarified.

First, scripture frames the issue in terms of divine sovereignty, not human autonomy. The Bible does not present the human will as operating independently of God, but rather as existing within and subject to God's sovereign purpose. God alone is autonomous, man is not.

Then according to this. Man has absolutely no will. He is not free to do what he wants. and he is bound by what God has him do.

I do not see this in scripture

Second, the question of autonomy highlights the Creator-creature distinction. The fundamental theological issue is not whether man makes choices (he does), but whether he does so independently of God (he does not). Paul affirms in Acts 17:28, "For in him we live and move about and exist." This flatly denies autonomy while affirming creaturely dependence.

Thank you for bringing this up. When we look at this passage. we see free will all though it.

Acts 17:

26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ 29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. 30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

See, here we have Gods sovereignty in tact. But also that he command all men everywhere to repent , and that they should seek the lord, in the hope that they might grope for the lord and find him. for he is not far from us..

can not do this, unless we have the ability to do this. And it is through Gods sovereignty and what God has done that enables us to do this

Third, autonomy is the theological root of the fall and sin. Satan's temptation in Genesis 3:5 ("You will be like God") was a temptation to autonomy. Sinful man's constant rebellion is an attempt to usurp divine authority and claim autonomy. In contrast, Christ in his obedience (Php 2:8) models that a pure will submits to the Father rather than seeking autonomy.

Is this what really happened. Adam was thinking of usurping Gods authority. and not thinking of any other reason? I can not say I agree here

Fourth, this framing avoids unhelpful philosophical baggage. The term "free will" is often co-opted by libertarianism,

and here is this word again

which assumes a power of contrary choice outside of divine causality. Asking whether the will is autonomous requires people to deal with divine sovereignty rather than assuming an unbiblical notion of human freedom.

Not really.. I see it different. But libertarian free will. I do not agree

Rather than engaging in misleading debates over human "free will," shifting the discussion to human "autonomy" centers the conversation on the true theological issue: whether the human will operates independently of God. This approach is more biblical, theocentric, and Christocentric. It aligns with divine sovereignty, preserves the Creator-creature distinction, and exposes the real issue behind sinful rebellion.

Misleading debates?

How about we just discuss what each other sees and believes. Then discuss those beliefs.

The misleading issue is trying to put people under a grouping (this person believes OSAS so he must be calvin, this person believes he can chose so he must be libertarian) when 90 % of the time. neither option is true.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Where did he say that? Because—to his own chagrin, I'm sure—that answers the question that I have been asking him. If the human will is NOT autonomous, that means God CAN control it (even if he never actually would). If the human will IS autonomous, that means God CAN'T control it (and therefore he never would).




I suspect that once he realizes human autonomy answers the question I have been asking him, he will immediately rescind his agreement.

once again, I do not deal in hypothetical questions.

Your trying to put me in some category. which is what i was concerned you were trying to do. and it appears my fears are now confirmed.

Now I am even more glad I did not answer you..

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Try it.

Well, it's worth trying, I hope.

hope for what?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

And yet:

Ephesians 1:4, "For he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world that we may be holy and unblemished in his sight in love." Salvation was planned before creation and Christ was the central means by which this plan would be fulfilled.

Amen

Hebrews 10:5-7, "So when he came into the world, he said, ‘Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me. Whole burnt offerings and sin-offerings you took no delight in. Then I said, Here I am: I have come—it is written of me in the scroll of the book—to do your will, O God’.” Christ entered the world with a preordained mission.

Amen

2 Timothy 1:9-10, "He is the one who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not based on our works but on his own purpose and grace, granted to us in Christ Jesus before time began, but now made visible through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus." God's purpose and grace was granted to us in Christ before time began, denoting that Christ's atonement was purposed in eternity past.

Amen

1 Peter 1:20, "[Christ] was foreknown [προεγνωσμένος] before the foundation of the world but was manifested in these last times for your sake." This Greek term denotes a predetermined purpose; Christ was foreordained to be our redeemer before creation.

Amen

Revelation 13:8, "And all those who live on the earth will worship the beast, everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain." This verse can also be translated as "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." In either case, it indicates that his sacrificial death was decreed from eternity past.

And so on.

Amen

there is one major flaw in your thinking

We were born dead. Meaning we were not born saved. Something had to happen for that salvation to occur. Until then, we were dead in trespasses and sins.

I agree with everything above. Nothing you posted here counters my theology or my belief.

But the elect, were elect on his foreknowledge. God knew before hand.

what did God Know?

His will

whoever sees and believes

Reformed theology is satisfying because it makes sense of what God tells us in his word—satisfying for those who set themselves aside to trust God.

Actually no it does not. If it did. I would be a reformed person..

Who would dare to judge God? Man?

And here we go.

I do not judge God. I align with God. God is a God of love.. God loves everyone. Like in the passage in acts. God preordained us, he put is un our nations, and gave us boundaries. so we would seek him, and call out to him. and repent.

 

[Eleanor]

This makes me sick inside. and probably why I do not like fatalistic thinking when it comes to Gods sovereignty

God purposed or planned the fall of mankind and all the evil and hardship. and pain and suffering

I can not even fathom a God that would even think of this.

"Houston, we have a problem. . .make that two."

Problem #1: The cart is before the horse.
You have God governed by your sinful human notions of justice rather than you being governed by God's revealed divine notions of justice; i.e., creating God in your own image. Because you cannot fathom it to be so, therefore, God's revealed truth cannot be so.

And problem #2: Your arm is too short.
Your knowledge/understanding of Scripture regarding God's justice is Biblically inadequate.

You let your personal fallen human notions of what God has to be determine what God actually is, rather than
letting what God reveals that he actually is determine your human notions of what he has to be.

In your thinking, God is not sovereign, you are. . .he must agree with you, with what you think he has to be.
You cannot be taught by him because you require him to agree with you, rather than you agreeing with him.

Spend some more time with Ro 9:22-23, and for that matter, the whole chapter of Ro 9.

If God is guilty.

Your arm is too short again. . .

Giving my son the freedom to manage his own finances when he goes off to college does not make me guilty when his own foolishness makes him go broke. He is guilty, I am not.
Nor is God guilty when Adam does the same in choosing sin (disobedience) .

Then God loses the ability to judge. because he can not accuse and try people for doing what he is guilty of also.
Jesus sacrifice is null and void. Jesus was not sinless. He caused evil. so he is just as guilty of those who did evil (all of us)

Pardon me for saying so. . .but this is so half-baked.

Guilty in whose court?. . .yours?

You stand the universe on its head. . .God's justice must give account to you, rather than you giving account to his justice.

Problem #1: You have God to be governed by your sinful human notions of justice rather than God's revealed divine notions of justice.

Problem #2: You need more time with Ro 9, e.g., vv. 22-23.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

"Houston, we have a problem. . .make that two."

yes we do.

Problem #1: The cart is before the horse.
You have God governed by your sinful human notions of justice rather than you being governed by God's revealed divine notions of justice; i.e., creating God in your own image. Because you cannot fathom it to be so, therefore, God's revealed truth cannot be so.

Nope. Please stop with your false accusations. I do not have God governed by me at all.

And problem #2: Your arm is too short.
Your knowledge/understanding of Scripture regarding God's justice is Biblically inadequate.

I am about done with your false accusations.

when your ready to discuss let me know. Until then I will no longer be respondent TO you

 

[Eleanor]

yes we do.

Nope. Please stop with your false accusations. I do not have God governed by me at all.

You said:

"I can not even fathom a God that would even think of this."

How would you phrase denial of what Scripture presents about God?

So when Scripture presents "this" (Ro 9), it violates your notion of what God is, which personal notion is contrary to Scripture's notion.
For you, your notion, not Scripture's notion, governs what God is,

I am about done with your false accusations.

Seems you are unaware of the Biblical implications of what you assert, and are offended when those implications are pointed out, but not nearly as offended as those to whom you assert such notions regarding God.

 

[Arial]

yes we do.

Nope. Please stop with your false accusations. I do not have God governed by me at all.


I am about done with your false accusations.

when your ready to discuss let me know. Until then I will no longer be respondent TO you

It is not a false accusation if it is how @Eleanor is understanding what you say.

She has been discussing. And presented something for you to discuss. If you think she has misunderstood what you have been saying, connect it to what you are saying instead, and why what you are saying does not conclude with what she understood.

How is it that when you say (condensing the response you gave to @DialecticSkeptic) and summarized his statement as meaning that if God planned the fall, he is the cause of all evil the world, and therefore is guilty (which is itself a distortion of what he said), and you can't fathom a God like that; how is that not doing exactly what Eleanor said?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

She has been discussing. And presented something for you to discuss. If you think she has misunderstood what you have been saying, connect it to what you are saying instead, and why what you are saying does not conclude with what she understood.

One hundred percent THIS! Very well said.

 

[makesends]

I was thinking of this this morning while I was trying to wake up. If I remember right, you think you are born again, THEN you will to act in faith and recieve salvation is this not correct?

No.

Salvation is ENTIRELY by Grace. Any act I do in (of, by, through) Faith is as a consequence—a result—of already being regenerated and saved.

The word, 'receive', above. Which use do you mean? — that of being a receptacle, or that of being actively, willfully, cooperative toward obtaining my salvation?

I know this may sound rambling, but I'm trying to put it in words that will put an end to the notion the the Elect has anything to do with getting saved.

Elsewhere you mentioned becoming convinced. One is indeed saved through Faith, but that does not imply that becoming convinced has in any way caused one's salvation.

My acting in faith is not how salvation is effected (—is not how salvation happens). My act of faith is not how I am saved. I am saved through faith —not through my calling out, not through anything I do, no matter how intensely or intimately or seminally or intricately or any other way faith is involved. The FAITH is not OF (by, through) ME, but is generated by the Spirit. Maybe a way to put it so you get the point, is that I am at best a passenger.

 

[makesends]

Giving my son the freedom to manage his own finances when he goes off to college does not make me guilty when his own foolishness makes him go broke. He is guilty, I am not.

This is true EVEN IF YOU KNEW AND INTENDED THAT his foolishness would make him go broke.

And you don't own him nor know him, in the sense that God does mankind. Nor do you even have God's wisdom, yet it is still your son's fault, and not yours.

 

[makesends]

I will look at it here in a few when I get some time. I do not just want to glance over it.. I will get back to you

I will make one correction.

I believe we are dead in sin. and we can not be made alive until that penalty is removed.

Ok, yes, you have said that.

Hence justification (made right with God) must precede regeneration.

Yes, you have said that.

That is my issue Not so much that we must call out for it.. I have witnessed people who while Our heads were bowed receive Christ. and I saw an amazing change in them in the days weeks and years ahead. so I know it was sincere.

What does sincerity have to do with being saved? If salvation is based on any one's own sincerity, we are all lost forever. Only the Spirit of God can be that sincere and constant.

makesends said:
The problem is in perception, then. You say you called out to him and so were saved. You assume your act of calling out was seminal to the salvation.

Did the tax collector call out?

The question is not whether he called out—of course he did. The question is whether his calling out produced his salvation, or was he already regenerated and saved prior to calling out.

(Just in case someone asks: This story can be looked at as something other than how you are using it, but that is beside the point. I'm trying to answer the point you mean to make.)

makesends said:

I say your will was changed prior to calling out.

Actually I became bankrupt (poor in spirit) I was desperate. I was so afraid of what eternity held for me that I was at a point I did not think I had any hope. I was like the last person alive from an overturned boat in the middle of the ocean. with 60 foot waves crashing all around me, And no land in site.

Did you ever ask how you knew enough to be desperate enough to call out for help? I'm saying, that desperation was from being made aware, woken up, transformed. Your particular aware experience of the situation is far from the only fact, and it is necessarily untrustworthy as the way things happened.

and when the savior came, and offered to save me, I called out. Yes lord. Save me, I want your grace gift. Because without it, i will die.

makesends said:
It is not your calling out that saved you.

No, It was God that saved me

I had no joy when I called out. or fellowship. Like the tax collector I was lost. No hope. Bankrupt.

Like I said before, your experience of what happened is necessarily NOT definitive.

The savior offered me life. and I received it in hop and faith. Because I had no place else to turn

Where did your hope and faith come from? Are you starting to get my point? I'm going to skip to the bottom.

Actually it was your wording.

You said we are not saved by a willed act.. By definition. it must then be a caused act. or unwilled act..

I was thinking of this this morning while I was trying to wake up. If I remember right, you think you are born again, THEN you will to act in faith and recieve salvation is this not correct?

So we both believe our sins were forgiven by a willed act.

Its just you think you were born again first. then understood enough to call out in faith?

I think and act of God helped me understand, and in faith acted and then was born again

do you believe they happen simultaneously as many calvinists do?

again, It is the words. not the thesis.



this is a logical fallacy in itself.

Is that a new charge of fallacy? See below.

"from my point of view"

again, if i already have it, I do not need to ask for it.

this just does not make any sense to me..

and I guess answers my question above.

Your asking for fellowship. Not asking for justification (forgiveness of sin)

This is still in the steps of trying to get your 'fallacy' charge resolved. I'm not trying yet, to get you to agree to my thesis. This is not arguing the question of the OP nor even any tangent from the OP. It is all for the purpose of trying to get me to see that you are correct that what I said was fallacious, or to get you to see that what I said did logically follow.

SO: Given my assumptions, I still think that my assertion logically follows.

SO: Again, GIVEN MY ASSUMPTIONS, do you still think that what I said was logically fallacious? If you do, please restate for me just what it is that I claim, that you were saying was a fallacy.

I'm not asking if you agree with my thesis. I'm not asking if you agree with anything I said. I'm asking if what I said does or does not follow what I assumed in getting there.

Take a look again at what you said was a fallacy, back days ago. If you still see that fallacy, even given my doctrinal assumptions, say so. If not, say no, that it was not a fallacious reasoning, given my assumptions.

If we need to, I am happy to point out the assumptions from which I draw my conclusions, but they are very many, though there are some core assumptions that may do the job for you.

 

[Arial]

I believe we are dead in sin. and we can not be made alive until that penalty is removed.

Hence justification (made right with God) must precede regeneration.

Then you simply do not understand what regeneration is biblically. In interpreting the Bible, one must use a term according to its biblical meaning. and in agreement with what the Bible shows it to be and why it is necessary. Near as I can tell, the reason you are unable to see it as it is, is because you first deny that God chooses who to save and say we choose him (whether or not to receive his gift.

What order do you see here? "And those he foreknew, he predestined to be conformed to his image, and those he predestined, he called, and those he called, he justified."

And lets for a change up, not go by your definition of foreknew, since I am not presenting your view, but mine. In my view and according to what I see in Scripture, foreknew simply means HE knew them. It says nothing about him foreknowing who would choose Christ. It says HE knew them. And he knew them according to Eph 4, because he chose them before the foundation of the world. He had intimate knowledge of them. It is the only way in which what follows is even necessary to be said by Paul. He predestined them to come to Christ and be in him, and so he called (summoned---same Greek word) them, and those he summoned he also justified. Faith is just as dead until our hard hearts have been removed and replaced with a soft heart that is not at enmity with God, as we are dead in sins. Sin, is what puts us at enmity with God and that will not change until God changes it. We come alive WITH faith given. We believe the things of God and the gospel. Our sins are removed when we believe.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

No.

Salvation is ENTIRELY by Grace. Any act I do in (of, by, through) Faith is as a consequence—a result—of already being regenerated and saved.

The word, 'receive', above. Which use do you mean? — that of being a receptacle, or that of being actively, willfully, cooperative toward obtaining my salvation?

What does these verses mean?

Romans 3:28
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law

Romans 5:1

Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ​

Galatians 2:16
knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified

This is just a few. If, as you say, we are already forgiven, what does justified by faith mean

I know this may sound rambling, but I'm trying to put it in words that will put an end to the notion the the Elect has anything to do with getting saved.

I did not do anything to get saved. I wish you and others would understand this.

Elsewhere you mentioned becoming convinced. One is indeed saved through Faith, but that does not imply that becoming convinced has in any way caused one's salvation.

It has not caused salvation.

It seems people seem to think that when we trust the one who came to save us, we have caused salvation.

You can not cause salvation.. Nothing you do will ever earn you salvation. Its impossible

The wage of sin is death, only death of an innocent applied on your behalf can cause you salvation (this is called justification)

My acting in faith is not how salvation is effected (—is not how salvation happens). My act of faith is not how I am saved. I am saved through faith —not through my calling out, not through anything I do, no matter how intensely or intimately or seminally or intricately or any other way faith is involved. The FAITH is not OF (by, through) ME, but is generated by the Spirit. Maybe a way to put it so you get the point, is that I am at best a passenger.

Your saved through faith? So was I.

Whoever calls on the name of the lord shall be saved.

Not sure why people are afraid of this.. Not saying you are afraid. But that is what it appears

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

This is true EVEN IF YOU KNEW AND INTENDED THAT his foolishness would make him go broke.

And you don't own him nor know him, in the sense that God does mankind. Nor do you even have God's wisdom, yet it is still your son's fault, and not yours.

And giving anyones son freedom would not make them guilty. No one is saying this

Coasting your son to do something that is sin WOULD make you guilty. Because your son in effect has no choice.

 

[Arial]

I did not do anything to get saved. I wish you and others would understand this.

Then pay attention to what you say. You have said repeatedly that God helped you to understand so you could believe and when you did believe, you were regenerated. If God only "helped" you, there must be some of you also involved.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Ok, yes, you have said that.

Yes, you have said that.

What does sincerity have to do with being saved? If salvation is based on any one's own sincerity, we are all lost forever. Only the Spirit of God can be that sincere and constant.

Again, this makes no sense whatever

Again, does the one who was rescued by a savior from death in a fire. Not by any action on his own. Because he sincerely trusted his rescuer to rescue him,

Jesus said faith of a mustard seed can move a mountain. Do you know how small a mustard seed.

Jesus was approached by a man, Who asked him to heal his child. Because the disciples could not do it. Jesus asked him, If you have faith. The mans response, I believe lord, help me with my unbelief.

Mark 9:
23 Jesus said to him, “If you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes.”
24 Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!”

makesends said:
The problem is in perception, then. You say you called out to him and so were saved. You assume your act of calling out was seminal to the salvation.

The question is not whether he called out—of course he did. The question is whether his calling out produced his salvation, or was he already regenerated and saved prior to calling out.

Once again, I can not cause my salvation.

God is offering it to everyone, as shown earlier. We have a choice. Deny his gift (hide the truth in our hearts) or recieve it in faith.

Me receiving a gift. Is not me saving or causing my selvation.

I honestly have no comprehension why people think this way

(Just in case someone asks: This story can be looked at as something other than how you are using it, but that is beside the point. I'm trying to answer the point you mean to make.)

makesends said:

I say your will was changed prior to calling out.

Did you ever ask how you knew enough to be desperate enough to call out for help? I'm saying, that desperation was from being made aware, woken up, transformed. Your particular aware experience of the situation is far from the only fact, and it is necessarily untrustworthy as the way things happened.

I know
1. God drew me
2. God helped teach me
3. God spend months teaching and helping me understand

It did not happen overnight, and it did not happen in a moment of time.

makesends said:
It is not your calling out that saved you.

Like I said before, your experience of what happened is necessarily NOT definitive.

Where did your hope and faith come from? Are you starting to get my point? I'm going to skip to the bottom.

I have told mentioned where it comes from many times now.

Is that a new charge of fallacy? See below.

It was my origional question

This is still in the steps of trying to get your 'fallacy' charge resolved. I'm not trying yet, to get you to agree to my thesis. This is not arguing the question of the OP nor even any tangent from the OP. It is all for the purpose of trying to get me to see that you are correct that what I said was fallacious, or to get you to see that what I said did logically follow.

But in my view it did not. And I do not see how it can.

I doubt we will ever agree to this..

SO: Given my assumptions, I still think that my assertion logically follows.

SO: Again, GIVEN MY ASSUMPTIONS, do you still think that what I said was logically fallacious? If you do, please restate for me just what it is that I claim, that you were saying was a fallacy.

Again

If It was not a willed act. Then it must be an un willed act. Or a caused act.

Now if you say it was not an act whatsoever. You have resolved the fallacy, and we will just disagree. But when you make the comment a willed act.. If it’s not willed. It is un willed.. there is no other option

I'm not asking if you agree with my thesis. I'm not asking if you agree with anything I said. I'm asking if what I said does or does not follow what I assumed in getting there.

Take a look again at what you said was a fallacy, back days ago. If you still see that fallacy, even given my doctrinal assumptions, say so. If not, say no, that it was not a fallacious reasoning, given my assumptions.

If we need to, I am happy to point out the assumptions from which I draw my conclusions, but they are very many, though there are some core assumptions that may do the job for you.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

@makesends I want to thank you so much for trying hard to at least converse with me without any assumptions. And trying to show others there may be something else.

Sadly, I can not say that about everyone in here. It is so frustrating.. But I will put it in Gods hands