Here’s the No. 1 fallacy on eternal security

Clare73 · Thursday at 2:26 PM

fhansen said:
So I'll ask again. Did God want His people to be freed?

That's another dodge. . . in relation to Pharaoh, who was commanded by God to do what God did not want him to do.

fhansen said:
If He wanted His people to be freed while not wanting His people to be freed then we'd have a problem, and duplicitousness, not to mention irrationality.

Non-responsive to God's "duplicitousness" with Pharaoh, in commanding Pharoah to do what God did not want Pharoah to do.

fhansen · Thursday at 2:44 PM

Clare73 said:
That's another dodge. . . in relation to Pharaoh, who was commanded by God to do what God did not want him to do.

That's another error. God wanted Pharaoh to free His people. In fact, if His people were not freed then we'd have no faith to be discussing right now.

Clare73 · Thursday at 2:58 PM

fhansen said:
That's another error. God wanted Pharaoh to free His people. In fact, if His people were not freed then we'd have no faith to be discussing right now.

"But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go." (Ex 4:21)

"Duplicitous" with Pharaoh?

Moral: Don't measure/describe God by man's standards; e.g., whether or not God is "duplicitous."

fhansen · Thursday at 3:04 PM

Clare73 said:
"But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go." (Ex 4:21)

"Duplicitous" with Pharaoh?

Moral: Don't measure God by man's standards, such as duplicitousness.

Did Pharaoh let the people go? Did God get what He wanted, iOW? Do you think that God did not want the Jews to be set free?

Moral: Consider the whole story not just bits of it.

Clare73 · Thursday at 3:11 PM

fhansen said:
Did Pharaoh let the people go? Did God get what He wanted, iOW?
Moral: Consider the whole story not just bits of it.

The subject and point was God's "duplicitousness" with Pharaoh, not God's plan for Israel.
Moral:
1) Consider the subject and point in view (duplicitousness), not the unrelated whole story as a distraction from it.
2) Don't measure God by man's standards, such as duplicitousness.

fhansen · Thursday at 3:56 PM

Clare73 said:
The subject and point was God's duplicitousness with Pharaoh, not God's plan for Israel.
Moral: Consider the subject and point in view, not the unrelated whole story as a distraction from them.

But you're avoiding all of it.
1) Through Moses, did God tell Pharaoh that He wanted the people to be set free?
2) Did God want the people to be set free?
3) If not, then He was being duplicitous, by lying to Pharaoh.

Likewise with Adam. If God commanded Adam to obey while not wanting him to obey that would be lying to Adam, and therefore duplicitous.

Clare73 · Thursday at 4:06 PM

Clare73 said:
The subject and point was God's "duplicitousness" with Pharaoh, not God's plan for Israel.
Moral:
1) Consider the subject and point in view (duplicitousness), not the unrelated whole story as a distraction from it.
2) Don't measure God by man's standards, such as duplicitousness.

fhansen said:
But you're avoiding all of it.
1) Through Moses, did God tell Pharaoh that He wanted the people to be set free?
2) Did God want the people to be set free?
3) If not, then He was being duplicitous, by lying to Pharaoh.

Does not address God's "duplicitousness" with Pharaoh in commanding Pharaoh to do a thing which God hardened his heart against so that he could not do it (Ex 4:21).

fhansen · Thursday at 4:26 PM

Clare73 said:
Lying is duplicitousness.

As I said. So the question for you today remains the same. Did God want his people to remain in captivity or did he want his people to be set free as he told Pharaoh?

That's the only relevant question here. Did God lie to Pharaoh when He told him that He wanted His people to be free

Clare73 · Thursday at 4:35 PM

fhansen said:
As I said. So the question for you today remains the same. Did God want his people to remain in captivity or did he want his people to be set free as he told Pharaoh?

Does not address God's "duplicitousness" with Pharaoh in commanding Pharaoh to do a thing which God hardened his heart against doing "so that" he could not do it (Ex 4:21).

fhansen · Thursday at 4:56 PM

Clare73 said:
Does not address God's "duplicitousness" with Pharaoh in commanding Pharaoh to do a thing which God hardened his heart against doing "so that" he could not do it (Ex 4:21).

You might call that duplicitous if you like. But it's not lying because God's desire didn't change. If He had told Pharaoh that He would never harden his heart and then He hardened his heart that would be an instance of lying.

Clare73 · Friday at 10:21 AM

fhansen said:
You might call that duplicitous if you like. But it's not lying because God's desire didn't change. If He had told Pharaoh that He would never harden his heart and then He hardened his heart that would be lying.

"Duplicity" is the topic, and duplicity is "falsehood."
God was "duplicitous" with Pharaoh, commanding Phraoh to do a thing which God blocked him from doing.

Moral: We don't judge God, he judges us.
God makes laws for us, we don't make laws for him.

fhansen · Friday at 11:41 AM

Clare73 said:
"Duplicity" is the topic, and duplicity is "falsehood."
God was "duplicitous" with Pharaoh, commanding Phraoh to do a thing which God blocked him from doing.

Moral: We don't judge God, he judges us.
God makes laws for us, we don't make laws for him.

No doubt that God can do whatever He wants of course but Satan, not God is the father of lies and that's why we can always count on God as being trustworthy. Again He didn't lie. You can try to twist the logic on it however you want but that's simply not the case. So you still haven't answered the question. Did God want his people to be free, as He conveyed to Pharaoh?

Clare73 · Friday at 12:12 PM

fhansen said:
No doubt that God can do whatever He wants of course but Satan, not God is the father of lies and that's why we can always count on God as being trustworthy. Again He didn't lie. You can try to twist the logic on it however you want but that's simply not the case. So you still haven't answered the question. Did God want his people to be free, as He conveyed to Pharaoh?

I give up, did he?

fhansen · Friday at 12:19 PM

Clare73 said:
I give up, did he?

Obviously He did, as. I've already stated and demonstrated. So now you know; God is not a liar.

Now, if you want to offer up some opinion as to why God hardened Pharaoh's heart, you may be able to bring additional insight into the question.

Clare73 · Friday at 2:28 PM

fhansen said:
Obviously He did, as. I've already stated and demonstrated. So now you know; God is not a liar.

Now, if you want to offer up some opinion as to why God hardened Pharaoh's heart, you may be able to bring additional insight into the question.

It's all in the texts (e.g., Ex 4:21).

fhansen · Friday at 3:32 PM

Clare73 said:
It's all in the texts (e.g., Ex 4:21).

Ok so do you believe that God wanted His people to to be free and also didn't want them to be free? Maybe some kind of divine schizophrenia at play?

Hentenza · Friday at 3:46 PM

fhansen said:
I'm curious to know if you think a sheep can stray into and remain in particularly egregious sin and still be considered a sheep by any reasonable measure. The bible says otherwise. Or, if that would disqualify them from being a sheep to begin with, then at what point, what degree or amount of sin, would/should trigger that opinion of them? Or if sheep, by definition, always return, how does one predict that they'll be one of those sheep. Or how does one know with 100% certainty that they're one of those sheep now?

Non-responsive. The question was where in scripture did you get your interpretation from based of the verses posted? I expect scriptural evidence not opinion or speculation.

fhansen · Friday at 4:38 PM

Hentenza said:
Non-responsive. The question was where in scripture did you get your interpretation from based of the verses posted? I expect scriptural evidence not opinion or speculation.

Guess I don't necessarily respond well to others expectations and demands, especially when most of their own responses have just been opinions and private interpretations, with large parts of scripture simply ignored.

And answering my questions in the post you're replying to here would do much to shed light on the matter anyway.

Hentenza · Friday at 4:53 PM

fhansen said:
Guess I don't necessarily respond well to others expectations and demands, especially when most of their own responses have just been opinions and private interpretations, with large parts of scripture simply ignored.

And answering my questions in the post your replying to here would do much to shed light on the matter anyway.

You don’t respond well because you don’t know scripture. That’s the fault of your church‘s over emphasis and reliance on uninspired tradition.

fhansen · Friday at 5:16 PM

Hentenza said:
You don’t respond well because you don’t know scripture. That’s the fault of your church‘s over emphasis and reliance on uninspired tradition.

Truth is, I have been responding reasonably well. But I'm kind of getting to the end of this party.. Part of the problem is that you really don't know that of which you speak. If you've ever studied Catholicism, Catholic and early Church theology as stated at councils or in the writings of great thinkers and the huge wealth of Christian thought in general going centuries back before the Reformation and then up through today in various resources: catechisms and works of theology, you'd know that scripture is not only highly revered but also expertly exegeted by the church and also probably quoted more often than tradition which is also held in high esteem as it's nothing more or less than the lived legacy or experience of the church froon the beginning: the beliefs and practices as received, not as simply speculated about based on the written word alone centuries after the fact.

For myself, there's a very good chance that I've spent more time in the Bible than you have. And again I used to buy into a lot of the reformed stuff before I got led deeper by a series of circumstances. Before then, I was quite anti-Catholic. Either way, I'm not expecting you to care about my story or be moved to take any deeper look at this point in time.

Here’s the No. 1 fallacy on eternal security

Blood-bought

Oldbie

Blood-bought

Oldbie

Blood-bought

Oldbie

Blood-bought

Oldbie

Blood-bought

Oldbie

Blood-bought

Oldbie

Blood-bought

Oldbie

Blood-bought

Oldbie

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Oldbie

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Oldbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency