Hebrews 6

[JIM]

Unless it means that you do not grasp the difference between "tasting" and "eating."

Where do you read anything about eating death or eating the heavenly gift or eating the goodness of the word of God?

 

[Eleanor]

Where do you read anything about eating death or eating the heavenly gift or eating the goodness of the word of God?

I give up. . .where do I?

 

[makesends]

That is illogical thinking. No matter how you try to frame it, God does not cause anyone to sin.

Jas_1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God," for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.

Nothing I have said means that God tempts anyone. Furthermore, it is illogical to say that someone else's thinking is illogical, merely because it contradicts YOUR use of scripture. You have not shown how God does not ordain whatsoever comes to pass, when the law of causation shows that God does cause that whatsoever does comes to pass, does come to pass.

Ironically, you have not disagreed that God is first cause, nor have you demonstrated how not quite all things result from God's causation, nor have you shown how it is possible for anything to happen apart from the law of causation, yet you vehemently hold to the notion that somehow the will is uncaused to decide how it does. I hesitate to assume why you would insist on self-determination.

 

[makesends]

Only in the sense that He has provided His special revelation, His written word. It is up to each to hear Him and believe in Him.

Good luck with that.

 

[makesends]

Probaby as well or perhaps even better than you.

There are many who believe that God exists but do not really believe in God. It is in believing in God saves.

I am basically non-denominational. But I think most non-Calvinist denominations come closer to believing as I do than as Calvinists do.

Are you aware that most [at least American] Protestant denominations are Calvinistic (whether they admit it or not)? Most people that know TULIP consider themselves at least 4-pointers, the difference usually being not about Total Depravity, nor Unconditional Election, nor Irresistible Grace, nor Perseverance of the Saints, but with Limited Atonement.

 

[JIM]

Are you aware that most [at least American] Protestant denominations are Calvinistic (whether they admit it or not)? Most people that know TULIP consider themselves at least 4-pointers, the difference usually being not about Total Depravity, nor Unconditional Election, nor Irresistible Grace, nor Perseverance of the Saints, but with Limited Atonement.

That is simply not true. Some Baptist denominations and Presbyterians adhere to the doctrines, but that is about all.

 

[JIM]

Nothing I have said means that God tempts anyone.

Your view that God causes everything and he caused Satan means that it is really God who in the final analysis tempts everyone.

Furthermore, it is illogical to say that someone else's thinking is illogical, merely because it contradicts YOUR use of scripture. You have not shown how God does not ordain whatsoever comes to pass, when the law of causation shows that God does cause that whatsoever does comes to pass, does come to pass.

And you have not shown that God ordains whatever comes to pass.

Ironically, you have not disagreed that God is first cause, nor have you demonstrated how not quite all things result from God's causation, nor have you shown how it is possible for anything to happen apart from the law of causation, yet you vehemently hold to the notion that somehow the will is uncaused to decide how it does. I hesitate to assume why you would insist on self-determination.

It is called free will, that critical attribute that God created in mankind that you reject.

 

[JIM]

I give up. . .where do I?

And you should. In fact you should give up on the idea that Jesus' only "tasted" but did not really "eat" death. Do you really think that His sacrifice on the cross was nothing more than being physically dead for a few days? Apparently you do. Incredible, absolutely incredible.

 

[Mr GLee]

And you should. In fact you should give up on the idea that Jesus' only "tasted" but did not really "eat" death. Do you really think that His sacrifice on the cross was nothing more than being physically dead for a few days? Apparently you do. Incredible, absolutely incredible.

I would offer,

The word "taste" must be defined like many words are used in two ways.

The father of lies focus on one, what the literal eyes see. He has no unseen spiritual understanding at all, it's why when revealing a lying sign to wonder after to Jesus . .promising .all the kingdoms and all the glory, he asked a question. If you are the Son of God

Three times the father gave words to Jesus the Son of man as it is written it again and again, three times struck him out never saw the faith ball coming lol

Like for instance taste and see God is good.

Psalm 34:7-9;O taste and see that the Lord is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

It was the kind of tasting the other apostles knew not of.at first food as strength from the father empowering Jesus to hear the will of the father and finish it giving glory to the father the powerful one .

John 4:33-35;Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat?Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. . . . . . . . . . . . Emanuel

The same kind of "what is it"? It taste as sweet as honey

Exodus 16:31 And the house of Israel called the name thereof Manna: and it was like coriander seed, white; and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey.

Called hidden manna in Revelation 2:17

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
No. But I did cause that he eat it. But in the end, that is irrelevant. I am not God from whom every cause and effect and imagination logically descends causally. But maybe your example helps you understand, if you consider the fact that God knew ahead, when he began it all, every detail that would come as a result of his causing, yet went ahead and created what would result in that effect.

And that is at the heart of the false Open Theology.

No. Open Theology says that God did not know, but must learn. In essence, that God did not know, because the future is not yet fact.

makesends said:
Even if your conception of 'free will' is right, I think you would have to agree that God gave it to you, and thus, if so, it is caused, and, as a result, logically, whatever that 'free will' does, is caused. What I am insisting on, in the end reduces to that.

No, I would not have to agree with that and I don't. That is the old faulty doctrine of determinism.

So, God did not give you free will? That's the part I was saying you would have to agree to. Are you saying he did not give it to you???

 

[makesends]

And you should. In fact you should give up on the idea that Jesus' only "tasted" but did not really "eat" death. Do you really think that His sacrifice on the cross was nothing more than being physically dead for a few days? Apparently you do. Incredible, absolutely incredible.

Pretended consternation doesn't win arguments here either.

 

[Eleanor]

Your view that God causes everything and he caused Satan means that it is really God who in the final analysis tempts everyone.

And you have not shown that God ordains whatever comes to pass.

It is called free will, that critical attribute that God created in mankind that you reject.

By definition, a slave is not free.

We are slaves to sin (Jn 8:34), we are not free to choose to be sinless.

Nowhere in Scripture do we find "free will" (ability to make all moral choices) presented. . .not to be confused with "voluntary."

And you should. In fact you should give up on the idea that Jesus' only "tasted" but did not really "eat" death. Do you really think that His sacrifice on the cross was nothing more than being physically dead for a few days? Apparently you do. Incredible, absolutely incredible.

When you give up on the same. . .

 

[JIM]

By definition, a slave is not free.

Correct, but against all Reformed Theology. a slave can desire to be free and and ask to be freed and can seek assistance to gain his freedom.

We are slaves to sin (Jn 8:34), we are not free to choose to be sinless.

Not even God makes you sinless when He frees you. The most you can expect is forgiveness and indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

When you give up on the same. . .

When you can give me the references showing that we need to eat, not just taste, enlightenment, the heavenly gift, the good word of God and the powers of the world to come.

 

[Eleanor]

Correct, but against all Reformed Theology. a slave can desire to be free and and ask to be freed and can seek assistance to gain his freedom.

Depends on which authority one is under.

Not even God makes you sinless when He frees you. The most you can expect is forgiveness and indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Precisely. . .if you cannot choose to be sinless, your will is not completely free.
Your notion of "free will" is Biblically inadequate, because you take it from human reasoning rather than Scripture.
True free will is total; i.e., ability to execute any and all moral choices, as could Adam before his fall.
Man's "free will" is limited to certain boundaries, it is partial, not total, he cannot choose to be sinless, for he is a slave to sin (Jn 8:34).

 

[JIM]

Depends on which authority one is under.

Nah!!!

Precisely. . .if you cannot choose to be sinless, your will is not completely free.
Your notion of "free will" is Biblically inadequate, because you take it from human reasoning rather than Scripture.
True free will is total; i.e., ability to execute any and all moral choices, as could Adam before his fall.
Man's "free will" is limited to certain boundaries, it is partial, not total, he cannot choose to be sinless, for he is a slave to sin (Jn 8:34).

I can't choose to fly either, but that has nothing to do with free will as it relates to the law or salvation, and neither to your comments here. Please, please don't try to impose your lack of understanding of free will on me.

 

[makesends]

That is simply not true. Some Baptist denominations and Presbyterians adhere to the doctrines, but that is about all.

I said 'Calvinistic' --not 'Calvinist'. I'm sure you've heard of the Reformation. Do you not know where 'sola scriptura' comes from? And the results of it--sola gratia, sola fide, solus Cristus, soli Deo gloria. I'd venture to guess even your denomination/congregation holds to those.

 

[Eleanor]

Nah!!!

I can't choose to fly either,

< sigh >

but that has nothing to do with free will as it relates to the law or salvation,

Jn 8:34 has everything to do with the "law or salvation."

and neither to your comments here. Please, please don't try to impose your lack of understanding of free will on me.

You're in over your head. . .

 

[makesends]

Your view that God causes everything and he caused Satan means that it is really God who in the final analysis tempts everyone.

Only in YOUR analysis.

And you have not shown that God ordains whatever comes to pass.

I have. Repeatedly. Here is is again, not for you, since I expect you to discount it by a flip of the hand, but for the casual reader: If (or, since) God, being Omniscient), knew from the beginning what would result from his creating, yet created anyway, he INTENDED every single result.

You have yet to even poke a tiny hole in that argument. Your only defense has been to deny and assert otherwise, unproven. Not by logical argument and not by scripture.

It is called free will, that critical attribute that God created in mankind that you reject.

You have yet to prove free will of the creature that is not self-contradictory.

 

[JIM]

I said 'Calvinistic' --not 'Calvinist'. I'm sure you've heard of the Reformation. Do you not know where 'sola scriptura' comes from? And the results of it--sola gratia, sola fide, solus Cristus, soli Deo gloria. I'd venture to guess even your denomination/congregation holds to those.

The Reformation basically out of Luther's objection to so many of the RCC policies, practices and doctrines.

 

[JIM]

< sigh >

<sigh> yourself.

Jn 8:34 has everything to do with the "law or salvation."

It has to do with the effects of sin on the sinner.

You're in over your head. . .

There is none so over their head as you in this or other discussions. Seriously, you do not, even as some others here do, present a good argument for the Calvinist/Reformed Theology doctrines.