The Ability To Choose - Free Will

[ElectedbyHim]

I feel like a broken record.

Once again

1. We were predestined from the foundation of the world to be conformed to the image of the creator. Based on Gods foreknowledge and his will
2. According to Jesus. His will is that all who see and believe (have saving faith) this is shown by jesus own words.

John 6: 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. 40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

John 5: 24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.



John 3: 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should [not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 1: 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

even paul said it

Eph 1: 13 – 14: 13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who[ is the [guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

as for order solutis? I do not speak latin, I try to stay away from it sincer the bible was not written in it. and it is not my language I assume you mean order of salvation?

I think it is all above. and I will add the closing remarks of John, who was a testimony to the things Jesus said

John 20:31 — 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

1. we must hear the words of Jesus,, the words as he said are spirit and they are life (this is eating the food which endures forever in john 6)
2. After God helps us to understand these words by teaching us. We must Believe (saving faith not mere belief) which means we trust in him (eph 1) by receiving him (john 1: 12) in faith (John 1, 3, 4 and 6 as we are saved by Grace through faith (eph 1)
3. Once we do this. God makes us, who were dead in tresspasses and sins alive in christ. via the washing of regeneration of the HS (titus 3) where our sins are washed away, having been redeemed by the blood of the lamb, as the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us (justification)

this can be a little wordy, if you need me to explain more. let me know. if you have any questions. I would love to answer them

I mean specifically where does Scripture teach that God elected humans based on them receiving Him.

None of those Scriptures say that God chose them because He knew they would choose Him.

Do you understand what I am getting at?

 

[Arial]

Your not? From my perspective you are

How am I limiting him? Show your work, don't just give an answer. From the atheists perspective there is no God. Does that make him right?

lol.. Sometimes I just have to laugh

You said God did not see in the future, we should not see God as man or something to that affect (in other words. I was looking at God from the eyes of man, hence I was limiting God)

You must have me confused with someone else and a completely different post than the one you quoted. I see no connection between this above and my post that it quotes. Deal with what I said. Deal with it when you respond to it. RULES!

And I showed how God is not like us, He knows the future from the past. its not to hard for him, I even used an example. God knew David before he was concieved

And I ask how he knew him? It is not future and past to God. And I did not say God looked into the future. That is what you are saying, though you deny it because you didn't use those words. Also you did not actually deal with anything I did say in that post. You just snarked back. If you would actually deal with what people say (do you know what that means?) you might actually learn something. I guess that is probably why you don't.

https://christcentered.community.fo...lesh-holds-tight-to-the-forbidden-fruit.2657/

 

[Arial]

It's like herding cats. . .

Yep. I picture a child closing their eyes, sticking a finger in each ear, and yelling, "I can't hear you, I can't see you!"

 

[Arial]

You can say it until your blue in the face. Your wrong.

Deliberate misrepresentation, by removing the context. Therefore, not engaging with the post. If you are not going to follow the rules, that were put there to keep this kind of garbage out; to strive to be a place where God alone is glorified and brothers and sisters are edified through actual discussion of differences and issue; there is no constructive purpose in attempting to discuss anything with you. All you seem to want to do is right fight.

Their sins are forgiven when they hear and believe. But they cannot believe when they hear unless they are first born again of God. Take for example those who had Jesus right in front of them, were talking to him, had witnessed his miracles, and still did not believe. Jesus told them why they did not believe. "Because you are not my sheep." He also said that all that the Father was giving him would come to him, and he would give them eternal life.

So, would you please give me your interpretation of the passages I referenced here from John 10. You can read the entire thing, within its full context there before you reply if you want to make sure of what you say it means. Doing this, would be an honest conversation with a willingness to listen and learn. A conversation carried on in good faith. As per the rules.

The above posts have been left undiscussed. From post #186. Posting in good faith requires that it be done.

 

[makesends]

Is the baby part of mankind?

Come on!!!!

again, Is a baby mankind?

You see no difference between Adam and Eve created in the image of God sinless and in constant loving communion with Him, vs a baby born with a disposition of enmity toward God into a world full of sin, with Adam's sin imputed to him?

God created the human race in his image, male and female created he them...

All offspring retain the image of the parents (adam and eve although since the flood. Some say the new parent would be the wife of noah)

and the parents are in the image of God.

its not a stretch. its actually logical

It is a logical stretch. You have jumped a few steps. 1. You can only guess what the "image of God" is. 2. You must admit to a huge difference between the mankind that God made in the garden, and what they have become since.

Adam fell, his sinfulness is inherited by that baby, his sin guilt is imputed to that baby, that baby practices corruption, and you don't even know what the 'image of God is'.

 

[makesends]

So he intentionally caused evil

Is that what you’re saying? I am sure it is not. But that’s what it sounds like

We've already been here. He intentionally caused that there be evil, and that FOR A REASON. That reason is why he caused that there be evil. He did not, for example, create the Reprobate just to enjoy making them pay. Romans 9:23 gives us the reason. For his own glory, shown to the objects of his mercy.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Good. . .because we are not talking about your faith.

Yeah, I trusted God. God did not trust himself.

You have me confused with someone else.

Except, that is not the meaning of prognosis (foreknowledge) in the NT when used of God.

Ac 15:18 -"Known to the Lord before all the ages (prognosis) are his works," (See Ac 2:23, Ro 8:29; 11:2, 1Pe 1:2, 20).

God's foreknowledge refers to/is of his works, not man's works.


See the above Scripture for that proof.

You failed to prove your point to me, Yes I confused you. somehow ariels quote got mixed in with yours.

But I gave you the defenition. as written

pre - pre, gnosis knowledge

to know before.

I looked up multiple greek english texts. and they all gave me the same defenition. in fact. I put them in my respond.

Again, You interpret those passages you way, I do not see it nor do I interpret them as you do.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

The reason it sound like that to you is because you are working from a logical fallacy.

I thought we were not supposed to respond in this way.

If this is ok. I would have said this to you in my last response to you. as the reason your upset is you are looking at what I said from a logical fallacy.

That fallacy is that it has to be one way or the other. If God is the cause of everything, then he is the cause of evil.

How is this illogical

Something akin to "Sally's cat is black therefore she only likes cats that are black."

That is nothing like saying someone caused everything but he did not cause evil.

In fact. this is illogical. If God caused everything, and evil is something, then logically, God caused evil

As you have previously been told the existence of evil is not caused. It is not a creation and it is not a thing. It is the absence of something and that something is "good". Evil acts are caused, and they do not originate from God in whom there is no evil, only good. Evil people cause evil acts, more accurately, do evil acts. If God were causing evil, he would have to be doing evil acts. and he would have cause it from something he does not possess within himself. He uses evil and the evil acts of evil men, to fulfill his purpose, which is always good. See the story of Joseph confronting his brothers in Egypt.

According to the rules concerning mentioning a logical fallacy, before you continue to argue from that perspective, you need to show why it is not a logical fallacy.

smh

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

I mean specifically where does Scripture teach that God elected humans based on them receiving Him.

I just showed you

if you looking for the exact words. show me the word trinity in the scripture.

None of those Scriptures say that God chose them because He knew they would choose Him.

No, But all of them show you what Gods will is. and has been since before the foundation of the world

hence logically, God chose based on his will

again, If you do not see it. It does not mean it is not there

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

It's like herding cats. . .

goes both ways

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Yep. I picture a child closing their eyes, sticking a finger in each ear, and yelling, "I can't hear you, I can't see you!"

Like I said to the other user

read these words to yourself. then take heed. Because this is what I see you doing..

if this is the way you all are going to treat guests to your chatroom. something is seriously wrong.

 

[ReverendRV]

@Carbon invited me back, and said People don't squabble so much here...

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Deliberate misrepresentation, by removing the context. Therefore, not engaging with the post

technically you have not engaged in any of my posts for awhile

You said

You have put in place a reward system of salvation. A human is rewarded salvation by receiving Jesus and Jesus is rewarded for going to the cross by God giving him people who were good enough and smart enough to receive him.

1. This is bearing false witness on what I believe
2. You can keep telling me this until you are blue in the face. it will not make it true.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

You see no difference between Adam and Eve created in the image of God sinless and in constant loving communion with Him, vs a baby born with a disposition of enmity toward God into a world full of sin, with Adam's sin imputed to him?

I see MANKIND WAS CREATED IN HE IMAGE OF GOD

yes we are fallen, But our image is still more like God than it is animals.

It is a logical stretch.

In your view. and this is fine, But its not

God thinks

Man thinks

God choses, Man choses

God creates, Man can create

God loves

Man loves

God serves

Man serves.



that is what seperates us from animals.. I do not see why you do not see it.

You have jumped a few steps. 1. You can only guess what the "image of God" is. 2. You must admit to a huge difference between the mankind that God made in the garden, and what they have become since.

ok...

Adam fell, his sinfulness is inherited by that baby, his sin guilt is imputed to that baby, that baby practices corruption, and you don't even know what the 'image of God is'.

yes, But the baby is still created in his image

again, I can not help you see this, but you at the same time can not just tell me I am wrong.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

We've already been here. He intentionally caused that there be evil, and that FOR A REASON. That reason is why he caused that there be evil. He did not, for example, create the Reprobate just to enjoy making them pay. Romans 9:23 gives us the reason. For his own glory, shown to the objects of his mercy.

again, I totally reject this notion

God did not cause evil

God caused the ability of evil to come about. because God man freedom. A freedom to chose. To follow and be served by God and serve God

or serve self.

Man created evil and the fall of this world. Satan created evil in the spiritual rhelm.

God gave both freedom to chose. Sadly.. these two leaders of their race (angelic and hiuman) chose to rebell against God

one took 1.3 of the engles with him

One took all mankind down with him

In adam all die. Not in Christ all die.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Caron invited me back, and said People don't squabble so much here...

Bring some wisdom with you my friend. and your humility

 

[Arial]

technically you have not engaged in any of my posts for awhile

You said

1. This is bearing false witness on what I believe
2. You can keep telling me this until you are blue in the face. it will not make it true.

The fact that you deny this is what you have in place, does not mean that it is not what you have in place when you state the position. I showed how it is. And to say that I have not engaged with your posts is bearing false witness. Everyone can see that I do.

 

[Arial]

I thought we were not supposed to respond in this way.

Who says? Read the rule. It is permissible to point out a logical fallacy if one feels a fallacy is being used. But it must be shown to be a fallacy and why----which I did. What is not permitted is to keep arguing the fallacy after it has been pointed out, unless you can show that it is not a fallacy.

If this is ok. I would have said this to you in my last response to you. as the reason your upset is you are looking at what I said from a logical fallacy.

This is what is not permitted. Accusing someone of using a logical fallacy without ever naming the fallacy and showing why it is a fallacy.

I am through attempting to communicate with you.

 

[makesends]

Arial said:
The reason it sound like that to you is because you are working from a logical fallacy.

I thought we were not supposed to respond in this way.

If this is ok. I would have said this to you in my last response to you. as the reason your upset is you are looking at what I said from a logical fallacy.

Rule 4.3: It is not against the rules to post a logical fallacy, nor to point out a logical fallacy, unless to do so continues to depart from the point of the thread. That is 'off-topic'.

Rule 4.4: It is against the rules to continue an argument between 2 opponents once a charge of logical fallacy is made, until the question is resolved by the 2 parties involved.

 

[Eleanor]

Yeah, I trusted God. God did not trust himself.

You failed to prove your point to me, Yes I confused you. somehow ariels quote got mixed in with yours.

But I gave you the defenition. as written

< sigh >

It's not just about the definition.
It's also about how the word (definition) is used in the NT where, when prognosis (foreknowledge) is used of God, it refers to his foreknowledge of his previous eternal decrees which determine everything, it does not refer to his foreknowledge of what men will do.

Demonstration that God's foreknowledge is of his own works, rather than the works of man, is in the following Scriptures:

"Known to the Lord before all the ages (prognosis) are his works," (Ac 15:18, 2:23, Ro 8:29; 11:2, 1Pe 1:2, 20) .
He knows his works (e.g.; election) because he has decreed that he shall do them.

So what about the above Scriptures do you not understand?

If you don't agree that the above Scriptures demonstrate my assertion that God's foreknowledge is of his own works, and not man's actions, then it falls to you to Biblically demonstrate how the above Scriptures do not demonstrate my assertion.