Posted on 02/17/2002 11:35:16 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
If God chooses to combine perfect foreknowledge and perfect, real free choice, then I'm certain God is powerful enough to make it so.
In fact, the man's argument is so obviously incorrect that it reveals the fatal flaw in dogmatic calvinism. Foreknowledge precedes God's activity in predestining because that is the way God reports it.
X, have you seen me simply regurgitate Calvin or have you seen me go to the words of scripture and insist that the words which are actually there be taken seriously. It is your position which necessarily adds words and thoughts, to the scriptures (i.e. Romans 8:29) and redefines words (i.e. "foreknow"). I simply am taking the words seriously and for what they say. That that is called calvinism or reformed theology doesn't concern me.
Jean
Which thread do you want to switch to?
We can start over there.
Jean
Since when were you concerned with the actuall words in the KJV?
"Second, the word 'foreordained' is right, because context and usage determines a words meaning not etymology."
I didn't know I was trying to show a history of how this word was developed. I was simply trying to give a biblical definition of the word, by showing where else it has been used in scripture as well as where the root words are used in scripture. I personally don't give a rip of its historical developement.
"Now, the King James is not the only one to translate it that way, so did Tyndale ( a Calvinist) and the (Reformed) Geneva (Ordained). Neither went to your definition. Even the NIV has 'chosen' and the NKJ has 'foreordained'."
So, are you admitting it that a legitimate definition of the word "foreknow" is "foreordain"??? Are you actually admitting this now????
Oh, and lest I forget, it was you who denied that 1 Peter 1:20 used the word "foreknow" and you accused me of a lie by claiming such. I'm still waitiing for the apologie.
"I guess they should have checked Strongs first!"
That the greek interlinear I am utilizing numerically codes the words to Strong's doesn't mean I'm using Strong's. I just was trying to make it simpler for you to reference the word. I was just being considerate.
"Do you really think you are as smart as you think you sound?. What is is about Calvinists that give them the idea that they actually know something? I have not yet seen it! The KJ only 'goofed' if Tyndale and the Geneva did also!"
Since this definition works perfectly with calvinistic predestination, I would claim these translators are correct. I was simply wondering if you thought the KJV translators goofed since it was you who accused me of a lie when I claimed 1 Peter 1:20 uses the word "foreknew" (proginosko).
"It must be nice to run to Strongs and think you actually know Greek!"
As I aready mentioned, I haven't yet pulled out my Strong's. And I never claimed to be an expert in Greek. That's why we have experts who form Greek/English Interlinears with references, concordances and dictionaries so we can see when "experts" such as yourself are trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
The interesting thing is, FTD. That up until now, you would not grant that "foreknow" in anyway means anything other than 'foreknowing the decisions of others'. But now, here in black and white, your guys translate that very same word as "foreordained". Now that you must admit the possibility that the calvinisist could be correct in their definition, it now comes down to "context" which is precisely what I was trying to show with my word study on "proginosko" and "ginosko".
Since "prginosko" means -literally- "to know before", and since Romans 8:29 testifies that this "foreknowing" takes place before creation, I simply referenced in the Bible where we see God "knowing" us now in the present to let that shed light and context on "foreknowing" in Romans 8:29.
"We always have a choice to eat or not to eat, even if it means death."
FTD, foreseeing this response, I picked my words very carefully. I never said we didn't have the freedom to choose to eat of not to eat.
"After all, it is necessary to eat. We don't have a choice in the matter, we need nourishment in order to survive. It is not something we can do without and expect to survive."
The issue, as is with the text you used, is nourishment. We have no choice but to eat for nourishment.
"Then why did you make reference to it like it meant something? You went on a long tirade about our 'relationship' of God having to do with 'to know'"
Siggggghhhhh (quite literally, I might add).......again, FTD. The literal definition of "proginosko" is "to know before". Since God "pre-knew" us before the creation, wouldn't it make sense to refer to Scripture where it speaks of God "knowing" us in the present? Wouldn't that help in understanding what "pre-knowing" means?
"See what a liar you are. After telling me about 'pro' and 'ginosko' you start giving me nonsense about 'ginosko'-to know!"
Please re-read this and see how stupid this 'complaint' sounds. Take your time.
"It also states in John 2;23-24 that Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men Did He have a personal relationship with all of them?"
God has a "relationship" with all men. He is a personal and active God. It just so happens that the relationship he has with some is benificial while the relationship he has with others is not.
"The word is still'foreknow'"
Yes, are you trying to tell me that Christ did not "foreknow" these men before creation as he now "knows" them in John 2: 23-24?
"He also 'foreknew' the nation of Israel (Rom.11:1-2) is all of Israel saved or only the remnant? (Rom. 11:5) Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith but as it were by the works of the law..(Rom.9:32)"
I'll let Romans 11:2 answer that:
"God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew"
No more really needs to be said. If "his people" are now a remnant of what it was, according to this passage they are still his people. It really makes no differnce as to their number. His sheep are His sheep.
"The word [love] nevertheless was there."
Siggghhhhh (again, quite literally).....The fact a word is used in no way allows you to use out of context.
"The 'point'is that you are trying to smuggle in the idea that 'to know' means 'to love', hence, who God foreloved He predestinated"
Again, you are putting words in my mouth. My idea is to use the word "to know" as the Bible uses it in John 10:14,15. To accuse me of defining this as mere "love" is a bit elementary. Does it involve love? Of course. But, quite obviously, there is far more to it.
"Not of 'foreknown' you didn't. You showed me some passages that you figured would replace the concept of preknowledge."
Oh yes I did! 1 Peter 1:20...remember? The "inspired" translators of the "perfect" KJV define it as "foreordained", so therefore, that must be a possible definition.
"I do have some 'issues' with those who twist scripture to make it mean what they want it to mean!"
Except, of course, when you do such.
"So what is that 'relationship; that is the same as that between the Son and the Father?"
Perhaps it is easier to define what it is not. It is not a mere knowledge of his activities -the definition you so need "foreknowledge" to mean and only mean.
"Ofcourse, you not saying that God loves us, no Calvinist likes to even mention the word Love with God! They take it to be a vice not a virtue"
Huh????????????
"I do not claim that the 'translators' were inspired, only their work (2Tim.3:16)"
My apologies, I thought that was part of the KJOnly view. I know other KJOnlyists who do indeed believe such.
"Yes, that is right, God had a master plan in which He knew what evil men would do to His sone. That is why both words are mentioned, determinate council (permissive will) and foreknowledge,(knowing what those who would condemn Him would do) Peter is explains that even though the Jews have killed their Messiah, God knew they would do it and still has a plan for them if they would repent (Acts.3:13-19)The word still refers to a PRIOR KNOWLEDGE"
Talk about twisting the words of scripture! The determinate council is now defined as mere "permissive will". I take it, your position is that God only "permitted" the crucifixion of Christ. It was not his direct will that this happen?
Talk about twisting scripture and redefining words!!! My friend, "determined council" is not mere permissive will, but actual direct will. God did not "let" Christ be crucified. God determined that Christ be crucified.
"He foreknows those who would be 'conformed to Image of His Son', but no one is 'foreknown' of God until they first believe
"But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God (Gal.4:9)"
I'm confused here, FTD. I just go blasted by you for talking about "knowing" when the word was "foreknowing". Why do you get to do this, and I don't?????
"God 'foreknows'those who would believe in Christ which results in the believer being predestinated and being chosen in him since the foundation of the world(Eph.1:4) Since it is God's will that all men be saved (1Tim.2:4) it is faith that God sees and thus, to predestinate those who would freely believe the Gospel of salvation."
I didn't ask you to tell me what you think Romans 8:29 is saying. I asked you what does Romans 8:29 say that God "foreknows"? It's not too difficult. Just look at the words and don't add anything to them.
Does Romans 8:29 say that God foreknows men or does God only foreknow "mens actions". If you answer the latter, I will then ask where the word "actions" is found in that text.
I'm confused here. Maybe you can help me out as to your definition of the word "foreknow".
Do you mean, as you have previously posited that "foreknow" means "knowing the choices we freely will make." or does foreknow mean God knows "those who would believe in Christ"
All I am looking for is a simple definition of "foreknow".
Does "foreknow" mean that God, in general, knows all the decisions men make?
Or does "foreknow" mean that God knows only of the decisions of those who would choose him?
"It[definition] was as much in the Bible as yours was! It gave the Greek just like you did! It gave the Scripture references that the word was connected to."
No, you simply quoted what some guy thinks 'foreknow' means. All I did was go to the root words, acknowledge that there are several possible literal definitions of the root words. I then went to where scripture uses these root words in a very similar fashion to the word in question. I then ruled out the possibility that "foreknowledge" is merely God's recognition before hand of men's actions. This is called interpreting scripture with scripture.
"I couldn't find your Strong definition anywhere either in the King James! I read the English, so where did your 'Greek' ginosoko come from? Not the King James English"
Again, I didn't use strong's. The interlinear I used was the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament (Baker, Grand Rapids, 1981).
"Yea, and they got it right there and they got it right in Rom.8:29 and 1Pet.1:2 when they translated it as foreknow"
We are getting somewhere, at least you now admit "foreknow" can mean "foreordain".
"As for my 'agenda'it is to search what the Scriptures really say about these issues, not accept what Calvinists say, espically those who think they can look at a Strongs, then pretend they know the 'Greek' and can twist a scripture to fit whatever doctrine they want.(2Pet.3:16) But this is a common occurance with the Calvinists on these threads. Ofcourse, Calvin did it, so why not his followers!"
If you were truly interested in searching what the scriptures say, I would expect you then, to look at the words of Romans 8, as one example (it simply says "For whom he did foreknow" not "For whom he did foreknow would someday choose him.", and try not to add anything as you insist on doing.
As a recap, I'd like an apology for you stating that I lied when I said 1 Peter 1:20 contains the word proginosko/foreknow.
I'd also like you to tell me specifically what Romans 8:29 says God "foreknows" -men's thoughts and actions or simply men.
I'd also like you to give me a literal basic definition of "foreknow/foreknowledge"
Jean
Can God lie?
"Don't jump threads - If you get involved in an argument in one thread, it's considered poor manners to restart the previous argument in the middle of an unrelated thread."
Jean
So, it won't be poor manners, it'll be a "reset."
It was you who was stating that Christ, having no depravity was free,(just as we can make decisions after our salvation, now ofcourse, even this goes against Calvinism since no decisions are made unless it is God making them!) and I was agreeing with what you said (that is right). So which is it now? Was Christ free to say no as well as yes?
As for your question 'can God lie' God cannot lie, but you do not have a correct understanding of His knowledge and how it relates to forordination.
God knew what Christ would do in time and therefore that Plan forordained. Christ did in time what the Father had always knew He would do, hence the Forordination.
No He was bound by HIS word..Our God is not a liar,and Jesus is God. I was making the point that Jesus would do the will of the Father as they had the same will. He was born sinless and had a perfect will.His will was not affected by the depravity of original sin as ours is.
Our wills are changed by regeration so that what we want is changed ...you just have a hard time getting that FTD.
Man does do as he wills ..
First, 'King James Believers' do not run to the Greek and are unconcerned with what it says. We have the English!" Since when were you concerned with the actuall words in the KJV?
Meaning???
"Second, the word 'foreordained' is right, because context and usage determines a words meaning not etymology." I didn't know I was trying to show a history of how this word was developed.
By going to the 'Greek'cognates you were attempting to use the words etymology as the criteria, not the English word itself.
I was simply trying to give a biblical definition of the word, by showing where else it has been used in scripture as well as where the root words are used in scripture. I personally don't give a rip of its historical developement.
After saying that you were not concerned about 'ginosko' you went on a tirade about it! The 'prefix' makes a difference. Morover, even 'knowledge' was not consistency translated they way that you said it was (intimate knowledge)
"Now, the King James is not the only one to translate it that way, so did Tyndale ( a Calvinist) and the (Reformed) Geneva (Ordained). Neither went to your definition. Even the NIV has 'chosen' and the NKJ has 'foreordained'." So, are you admitting it that a legitimate definition of the word "foreknow" is "foreordain"??? Are you actually admitting this now????
What is there to admit, in that passage it is forordain, in the others it is foreknow, whatever the Greek word is makes no difference, in English it is what the passage says! Both Tyndale and Geneva also translated Rom.8:29 as 'Foreknow'.
Oh, and lest I forget, it was you who denied that 1 Peter 1:20 used the word "foreknow" and you accused me of a lie by claiming such. I'm still waitiing for the apologie.
The King James reads 'forordained', what are you talking about?
"I guess they should have checked Strongs first!" That the greek interlinear I am utilizing numerically codes the words to Strong's doesn't mean I'm using Strong's. I just was trying to make it simpler for you to reference the word. I was just being considerate.
I have no idea what you are talking about. If you going to post to me past conversations, please show what I am saying and what you are saying!
"Do you really think you are as smart as you think you sound?. What is is about Calvinists that give them the idea that they actually know something? I have not yet seen it! The KJ only 'goofed' if Tyndale and the Geneva did also!" Since this definition works perfectly with calvinistic predestination, I would claim these translators are correct. I was simply wondering if you thought the KJV translators goofed since it was you who accused me of a lie when I claimed 1 Peter 1:20 uses the word "foreknew" (proginosko).
It didn't use the word 'foreknew' it used the English word Forordain! Just because it is the same Greek word means nothing! That is not what it says in the English, unless you are now making up your own translation?
"It must be nice to run to Strongs and think you actually know Greek!" As I aready mentioned, I haven't yet pulled out my Strong's. And I never claimed to be an expert in Greek. That's why we have experts who form Greek/English Interlinears with references, concordances and dictionaries so we can see when "experts" such as yourself are trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
No, that is why we have a Bible in English You went to the 'Greek' in 1Pet.1:20 claiming it said 'foreknow' it doesn't it says, 'Forordain' in English, no matter what the Greek word is.
That same Greek word is used in Acts.2:23
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowlege of GodEven Calvin recognized that this is referring to prior knowledge-context determines meaning.
The interesting thing is, FTD. That up until now, you would not grant that "foreknow" in anyway means anything other than 'foreknowing the decisions of others'.
Foreknowledge means God knowing everything that is going to happen. Where did I say that it only refers to the actions the decisions of others?!
But now, here in black and white, your guys translate that very same word as "foreordained". Now that you must admit the possibility that the calvinisist could be correct in their definition, it now comes down to "context" which is precisely what I was trying to show with my word study on "proginosko" and "ginosko".
No, I do not grant it, because the English reads 'foreknow' not 'forordained' just as the NAS is wrong for translating 1Pet.1:20 as 'foreknow'!
Since "prginosko" means -literally- "to know before", and since Romans 8:29 testifies that this "foreknowing" takes place before creation, I simply referenced in the Bible where we see God "knowing" us now in the present to let that shed light and context on "foreknowing" in Romans 8:29. "We always have a choice to eat or not to eat, even if it means death." FTD, foreseeing this response, I picked my words very carefully. I never said we didn't have the freedom to choose to eat of not to eat. "After all, it is necessary to eat. We don't have a choice in the matter, we need nourishment in order to survive. It is not something we can do without and expect to survive." The issue, as is with the text you used, is nourishment. We have no choice but to eat for nourishment.
Well, you did not choose your word carefully enough. It is not necessary to eat if one wants to die. You say we need nourishment, not if we wish to die we don't. You say, 'is not something we can do with and expect to survive' what if we do not expect to survive?
"Then why did you make reference to it like it meant something? You went on a long tirade about our 'relationship' of God having to do with 'to know'" Siggggghhhhh (quite literally, I might add).......again, FTD. The literal definition of "proginosko" is "to know before". Since God "pre-knew" us before the creation, wouldn't it make sense to refer to Scripture where it speaks of God "knowing" us in the present? Wouldn't that help in understanding what "pre-knowing" means?
I know what pre-knowing means, it means knowing something before something else!
"See what a liar you are. After telling me about 'pro' and 'ginosko' you start giving me nonsense about 'ginosko'-to know!" Please re-read this and see how stupid this 'complaint' sounds. Take your time.
Well, that took a moment, so lets move on.
"It also states in John 2;23-24 that Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men Did He have a personal relationship with all of them?" God has a "relationship" with all men. He is a personal and active God. It just so happens that the relationship he has with some is benificial while the relationship he has with others is not. "The word is still'foreknow'" Yes, are you trying to tell me that Christ did not "foreknow" these men before creation as he now "knows" them in John 2: 23-24?
He did not have a personal relationship with them as you tried to make the meaning of the word in your first post.
"He also 'foreknew' the nation of Israel (Rom.11:1-2) is all of Israel saved or only the remnant? (Rom. 11:5) Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith but as it were by the works of the law..(Rom.9:32)" I'll let Romans 11:2 answer that: "God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew"
Is everyone in Israel saved? That is speaking of the nation, who is saved in that nation, a remnant (Rom.11:6)
No more really needs to be said. If "his people" are now a remnant of what it was, according to this passage they are still his people. It really makes no differnce as to their number. His sheep are His sheep. "The word [love] nevertheless was there." Siggghhhhh (again, quite literally).....The fact a word is used in no way allows you to use out of context.
I have no idea what you are talking about, so save the Sigggghhhh
"The 'point'is that you are trying to smuggle in the idea that 'to know' means 'to love', hence, who God foreloved He predestinated" Again, you are putting words in my mouth. My idea is to use the word "to know" as the Bible uses it in John 10:14,15. To accuse me of defining this as mere "love" is a bit elementary. Does it involve love? Of course. But, quite obviously, there is far more to it.
I am not putting words in your mouth. You spoke of the intimate relationship that existed between the Father and Son and how that knowledge was the same. Now, what is the basis of that relationship (Jn.17). Moreover, you used the word yourself in one of the passages you cited.
"Not of 'foreknown' you didn't. You showed me some passages that you figured would replace the concept of preknowledge." Oh yes I did! 1 Peter 1:20...remember? The "inspired" translators of the "perfect" KJV define it as "foreordained", so therefore, that must be a possible definition.
Now, we are going in circles. One, save the comments about the inspired translators. Two, the word in that context is forordained. In Acts. 2:23 (according to Calvin himself) it is 'foreknow-to know something before something else!
"I do have some 'issues' with those who twist scripture to make it mean what they want it to mean!" Except, of course, when you do such.
I haven't, I want to stay with what the English says, not what you guys think the Greek says.
"So what is that 'relationship; that is the same as that between the Son and the Father?" Perhaps it is easier to define what it is not.
How, no, you can't do that! I was hammered when I gave an answer and did not say what I stood for as well as against.
It is not a mere knowledge of his activities -the definition you so need "foreknowledge" to mean and only mean.
So, what is it? That says nothing. But then again you guys are good at that.
"Ofcourse, you not saying that God loves us, no Calvinist likes to even mention the word Love with God! They take it to be a vice not a virtue" Huh????????????
No, huh about it. Calvinist avoid associating the word Love with God like it was a vice not a virtue.
"I do not claim that the 'translators' were inspired, only their work (2Tim.3:16)" My apologies, I thought that was part of the KJOnly view. I know other KJOnlyists who do indeed believe such. "Yes, that is right, God had a master plan in which He knew what evil men would do to His sone. That is why both words are mentioned, determinate council (permissive will) and foreknowledge,(knowing what those who would condemn Him would do) Peter is explains that even though the Jews have killed their Messiah, God knew they would do it and still has a plan for them if they would repent (Acts.3:13-19)The word still refers to a PRIOR KNOWLEDGE" Talk about twisting the words of scripture! The determinate council is now defined as mere "permissive will". I take it, your position is that God only "permitted" the crucifixion of Christ. It was not his direct will that this happen?
Ofcourse it was not his direct will! God did not want Lucifer to sin (but he did), God did not want Adam to sin (but he did). None of those things should have happened, they were permitted to happen so God could accomplish His overall Plan. Thus, the Cross was not what God would have had happen had His creatures not rejected Him.
Talk about twisting scripture and redefining words!!! My friend, "determined council" is not mere permissive will, but actual direct will. God did not "let" Christ be crucified. God determined that Christ be crucified.
No, it is the Plan that God decided would happen, based on His Foreknowledge of the actions of those involved.
"He foreknows those who would be 'conformed to Image of His Son', but no one is 'foreknown' of God until they first believe "But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God (Gal.4:9)" I'm confused here, FTD. I just go blasted by you for talking about "knowing" when the word was "foreknowing". Why do you get to do this, and I don't?????
This was in answer to the question of what is preknown by God. It is those who have believed and are in Christ.
"God 'foreknows'those who would believe in Christ which results in the believer being predestinated and being chosen in him since the foundation of the world(Eph.1:4) Since it is God's will that all men be saved (1Tim.2:4) it is faith that God sees and thus, to predestinate those who would freely believe the Gospel of salvation." I didn't ask you to tell me what you think Romans 8:29 is saying. I asked you what does Romans 8:29 say that God "foreknows"? It's not too difficult. Just look at the words and don't add anything to them.
Just because you cannot understand them that is not my problem! The believer is not known by God until he is in Christ, then he is 'foreknown' and then predestinated as being part of the Church and co-heir to Christ. Rom 8:29 is not a salvation passage but a election to privlege passage (being conformed to the image of the Son)
Does Romans 8:29 say that God foreknows men or does God only foreknow "mens actions". If you answer the latter, I will then ask where the word "actions" is found in that text.
He foreknows men, who are in Christ These are those (in this Church age) that will be conformed to the image of His Son and are co-heirs with Christ.
I'm confused here. Maybe you can help me out as to your definition of the word "foreknow". Do you mean, as you have previously posited that "foreknow" means "knowing the choices we freely will make." or does foreknow mean God knows "those who would believe in Christ" All I am looking for is a simple definition of "foreknow". Does "foreknow" mean that God, in general, knows all the decisions men make? Or does "foreknow" mean that God knows only of the decisions of those who would choose him? "It[definition] was as much in the Bible as yours was! It gave the Greek just like you did! It gave the Scripture references that the word was connected to." No, you simply quoted what some guy thinks 'foreknow' means. All I did was go to the root words, acknowledge that there are several possible literal definitions of the root words. I then went to where scripture uses these root words in a very similar fashion to the word in question. I then ruled out the possibility that "foreknowledge" is merely God's recognition before hand of men's actions. This is called interpreting scripture with scripture. "I couldn't find your Strong definition anywhere either in the King James! I read the English, so where did your 'Greek' ginosoko come from? Not the King James English" Again, I didn't use strong's. The interlinear I used was the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament (Baker, Grand Rapids, 1981).
Who cares what you used, it was not the English!
"Yea, and they got it right there and they got it right in Rom.8:29 and 1Pet.1:2 when they translated it as foreknow" We are getting somewhere, at least you now admit "foreknow" can mean "foreordain".
No, the words are two different words, you know how I can tell, they are spelled differently!
"As for my 'agenda'it is to search what the Scriptures really say about these issues, not accept what Calvinists say, espically those who think they can look at a Strongs, then pretend they know the 'Greek' and can twist a scripture to fit whatever doctrine they want.(2Pet.3:16) But this is a common occurance with the Calvinists on these threads. Ofcourse, Calvin did it, so why not his followers!" If you were truly interested in searching what the scriptures say, I would expect you then, to look at the words of Romans 8, as one example (it simply says "For whom he did foreknow" not "For whom he did foreknow would someday choose him.", and try not to add anything as you insist on doing.
That is right, but no one is foreknown until they are in Christ, and no one gets into Christ until they believe in Christ.
As a recap, I'd like an apology for you stating that I lied when I said 1 Peter 1:20 contains the word proginosko/foreknow.
No, because the word isn't foreknow it is forordination. In fact, I stated that the NAS had translated the word incorrectly 'foreknown'.
I'd also like you to tell me specifically what Romans 8:29 says God "foreknows" -men's thoughts and actions or simply men. I'd also like you to give me a literal basic definition of "foreknow/foreknowledge" From God's foreknowledge fo a free action, on may infer only that that action will occur, not that it must occur. The agent performing the action has the power to refrain, and were the agent to do so, God's foreknowledge would have been different. Agents cannot bring about both that God foreknows their action and that they do not preform the action, but this no limitiation of their freedom. They are free either to act or to refrain, and whichever they choose, God will have foreknown. For God's knowldge, though chronology prior to the action, is logically posterior to the action and determined by it. Therefore, divine foreknowledge and human freedom are not mutually exclusive (Willaim Land Craig, cited in The Other Side of Calvinism, L.Vance.p.391-2)
!
That is correct, but Christ was also perfect man and as such had a will that he had to willingly (that is the word you used) submit it to the Fathers. The Father did not force him to do anything, He chose of his own free will to be obedient to the Father.
Our wills are changed by regeration so that what we want is changed ...you just have a hard time getting that FTD. Man does do as he wills ..
What I have a hard time 'getting' is when people use the word 'willingly' when they mean they were forced by Irresistable Grace.
Calvinism is one massive contradiction which urges its followers not to think but to have faith in the secret councils of God. Allah be praised!
FTD..He had a perfect will, unaffected by by the total depravity resulting from the fall.He was created before the fall..He was not affected by the fall. He was the first born of all creation..His will was perfectly aligned with the Father..there was never a doubt. His choice was foreordained before the foundation of the world.
WOW! What a load of crap. This has got to be the weakest and most brain dead response I have ever seen.
Is there a saying which says you can't reason with unreasonable people? If not, it should be invented.
Mr. FTD, since you have shown not the least bit of reason, our conversation is over.
WOW, what a hoot!
Jean
Since you will not debate this issue honestly, I have no more to say to you.
The question still remains: Since this woman was indeed a sinner, and since this woman had no ability to choose to accept Christ, how, according to arminian theology is she saved. According to arminian theology, -all- must decide for themselves -freely- to accept Christ. This woman could not ever have done so, in her normal life until she was 3 or in her brain damaged altered life for the next 47 years. How does the arminian reconcile this?
Do I need to note that I have yet to receive an answer other than that she was baptised? That answer contradicts the meaning of baptism anyway. And what about the vast number of arminians who deny the doctrine of infant baptism?
Jean
Gee, you and Doc must have gone to the same Calvinist school-'you lose'.
As for 'Reason' that is a oxymoron to a Calvinist
Non-Calvinist: God decreed everything with His directive will, including sin-
Calvinist:yes!
N.C.: Then God is the author of Sin?
C:No!God is not the author of Sin.
NC: Man is born into sin and cannot change his nature-
C:Yes!
NC:Therefore, man cannot be responsible since he has no choice but to be what he is since he is born that way
C:-No! man is still responsible
NC: Then man is free
C:Yes, man is free.
NC:to make a choice?
C:Oh, no not to make a choice, he is free to continue in his slavery to his nature.
That is Calvinism, contradictions upon contradictions that are suppose are accepted because of the secret Councils of God!
NUTS
What made Christ the perfect man? He was without sin..in Him there was no sin.He was born without the depravity that marks the sons of Adam..He was made in His Fathers image and as such he desired to do his Fathers will.
Sinful man can not desire to do God's will without Gods grace..
God's grace does not force my friend it woos...it draws you to Him with love and mercy..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.