• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Question for Arminians and Calvinists on foreknowledge

You could stare at that for a thousand years and not come up with your statement here. Jesus knows what's coming. He asks, if it is possible, that that fate pass from Him. He "wills" to avoid it by the Father's will *but* He places the Father's will above His own.

I won't even attempt to wrap my head around that...but the words say what they say.
Amen!!...imo/ belief
 
If you are thinking there is more than one way to understand those verses, we aren't on the same page.

I don't know how you got that from what I said. To the contrary. I am saying that you may well believe you are right but there is only one solution that is correct.

And there you have it not my will, but thine be done.

When I say "not my will but my will be done...." I can assure that I agree with her.
 
I seek not my own will but the will of the Father @Eleanor ?...in the scripture above I posted....

So, he is saying he is seeking the will of the Father?

Not that his will is in line with the Fathers?
He is distinguishing between two separate wills, and always submitting his to the Father's.
His prayer there was for another way, if possible, for the Father to do it, for his will was in submission to the Father's.
 
You could stare at that for a thousand years and not come up with your statement here. Jesus knows what's coming. He asks, if it is possible, that that fate pass from Him. He "wills" to avoid it by the Father's will *but* He places the Father's will above His own.

I won't even attempt to wrap my head around that...but the words say what they say.

No. There are different definitions for submit. I provided the one that you're insisting is true. You're making Christ subservient to the Father as if He did not want to do what He WANTED to do. He WANTED/DESIRED to save men.

We find this in Hebrews

Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Study the English word.....behoved.
 
He is distinguishing between two separate wills, and always submitting his to the Father's.
His prayer there was for another way, if possible, for the Father to do it, for he was in submission to the will of the Father.
Amen!!..thank you.
 
He is distinguishing between two separate wills, and always submitting his to the Father's.
His prayer there was for another way, if possible, for the Father to do it, for he was in submission to the will of the Father.

That is preposterous. It really is. Christ KNEW what was going to happen. The Godhead PLANNED... the event. He didn't come to the garden to start pleading for an alternative. What you read is what God wanted man to know to choose from. It has caused these types of discussion to seperate those who seek their own from those who seek the Truth.
 
I am agreeing with them in the Spirit....my opinion and belief....

Such statement try to establish your position is "Spiritual" and mine is not. It is why I do not use them. I just care about the facts, I'm not calling the "Spirit" to my side.
 
There was no need for submission. Submission implies resistance.
True submission denotes all resistance removed, as in submission to God
English definition of "submit"... accept or yield to a superior force or to the authority or will of another person.
And in the NT, it is accept and ascribe his will as your own.
You are presenting the Father as a superior force.
Well I certainly wouldn't want to present God as omnipotent, would I?
 
True submission denotes all resistance removed, as in submission to God

So you're not saying that Jesus wasn't resisting the will of the Father and had to SUBMIT to the Father's will?

That is what you've been saying for some time now. Why not stay true to your comments.
 
No. There are different definitions for submit. I provided the one that you're insisting is true. You're making Christ subservient to the Father as if He did not want to do what He WANTED to do. He WANTED/DESIRED to save men.

You cannot draw that from what I've put forward here. Try again.

We find this in Hebrews

Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Study the English word.....behoved.

I'm not interested in Hebrews for this little kerfluffle. I could turn that around as well with the word "endure" but my verse is sufficient. If all you have is "nuh uh" and running elsewhere then you have nothing to stand on. Here is where we are:

Matthew 26:39
And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.”
 
No. There are different definitions for submit. I provided the one that you're insisting is true. You're making Christ subservient to the Father as if He did not want to do what He WANTED to do. He WANTED/DESIRED to save men.
In some other way, if possible.
I want to be free of cancer, but is there some other way than amputating my leg? How 'bout. . .or 'bout?
But if that is the only way, not my will but the surgeon's be done.
We find this in Hebrews

Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Study the English word.....behoved.
 
You cannot draw that from what I've put forward here. Try again.

Sure I did.

I'm not interested in Hebrews for this little kerfluffle. I could turn that around as well with the word "endure" but my verse is sufficient. If all you have is "nuh uh" and running elsewhere then you have nothing to stand on. Here is where we are:

Are you interested or not? Saying you're not interested in the Scripture is telling.

Matthew 26:39
And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.”

I've already dealt extensively with this today in this thread. Find somewhere you disagree and quote me. I see no reason to endless repeat myself.
 
Possible sarcasm here ... giggle

I don't know why it was necessary. She drew a contrast in her comments. Whether intentional or not, she contrasted the Omnipotence of God contrary the lack thereof in the Son.

Do you accept the Divinity of Jesus Christ?
 
That is preposterous. It really is. Christ KNEW what was going to happen. The Godhead PLANNED... the event. He didn't come to the garden to start pleading for an alternative. What you read is what God wanted man to know to choose from. It has caused these types of discussion to seperate those who seek their own from those who seek the Truth.
Jesus went through all that agony, actually forcing blood through his pores, just for a demonstration to man of what to choose from?
 
So you're not saying that Jesus wasn't resisting the will of the Father and had to SUBMIT to the Father's will?

That is what you've been saying for some time now. Why not stay true to your comments.
I give up, why not?
 
Back
Top