Weep Over Jerusalem?

[guuila]

Bob wont be saved because Bob wont choose God. Temporally, he had a chance.

Ok then. Why did God create Bob?

 

[janxharris]

Ok then. Why did God create Bob?

It's a good question. I will think on it.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Bob wont be saved because Bob wont choose God. Temporally, he had a chance.

We're asking you to step into God's shoes for a moment. God, by your own admission, is a-temporal. Man's purely temporal position is entirely irrelevant as far as the questions you're being asked are concerned. So the overall question breaks down into two:

1. Does God foresee that Bob won't choose salvation, prior to Bob's creation?
2. Does God create Bob knowing his future?

You're trying to turn this into a "God fitting into man's perception" issue. See it from God's perspective. I'm not asking you to make decisions or judgements on God's behalf, just to answer two basic, simple questions.

One must take into consideration the point I made about how altered the world would be if there was no true free will.

Totally irrelevant. But for a moment let's say that Bob's will isn't constrained by his nature (which all our wills are) and that from birth Bob has an absolutely free choice to choose God, yet does not. Now answer the two questions.

Edit: Composed whilst the above was taking place between Griff and Janx. Possibly redundant.

 

[guuila]

It's a good question. I will think on it.

Yes, please do. Your position is that God desires the salvation of every single person. Fine. You say God would never create a person for hell. So you need to explain how it is God creating Bob isn't God creating Bob for hell.

 

[travelah]

Huh. Well, I haven't seen anyone in this discussion deny it. How do you define free will? What does free will mean to you?

Answer your own questions and let's see how much you affirm "free will".

 

[guuila]

Answer your own questions and let's see how much you affirm "free will".

I asked you first.

 

[Hammster]

I asked you first.

No kidding.

 

[Skala]

I asked you first.

Bump.

 

[travelah]

I asked you first.

The denial of free will is contained in your answer. I have never met a Calvinist yet who could escape the conundrum. Don't worry though. I fully understand your reluctance. As for myself, I do not agree to a "free will" theology.

 

[guuila]

The denial of free will is contained in your answer.

What answer?

I have never met a Calvinist yet who could escape the conundrum.

Cool story bro.

Don't worry though. I fully understand your reluctance.

I'm not.

As for myself, I do not agree to a "free will" theology.

So what do you agree to?

 

[Skala]

I have never met a Calvinist yet who could escape the conundrum.

What conundrum are you speaking of?

Are there any conundrums for Arminians? I can think of a few. Shall we discuss them?

 

[guuila]

*crickets*

 

[Hammster]

I was wondering how he'd get out of answering the question.

 

[guuila]

I was wondering how he'd get out of answering the question.

Yeah... it's pretty easy to tell someone what the Bible doesn't say... quite a bit more difficult to explain what it *does* say.

 

[Skala]

Yeah... it's pretty easy to tell someone what the Bible doesn't say... quite a bit more difficult to explain what it *does* say.

QFT

 

[cygnusx1]

The reason is given in 1 Corinthians , a reason that could not be given in a synergistic view !

1 Cor 1 :

[23] But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
[24] But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
[25] Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
[26] For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
[27] But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
[28] And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
[29] That no flesh should glory in his presence.

Just how do synergists and conditional election advocates make this text work ?

Beats me !

 

[guuila]

Just how do synergists and conditional election advocates make this text work ?

Beats me !

Well, obviously Ezekiel 18 trumps this text.

 

[jdbear]

Hammster said,
Open Theism (the idea that God doesn't know the future) is only allowed to be discussed in Unorthodox Theology.

I'm not unorthodox with respect to God knowing the future. Don't know why you mentioned it.

 

[jdbear]

griff said,
If you're not an Open Theist, I don't know why. Calvinism doesn't teach that. The Bible teaches that. Jesus himself said many enter the broad way of destruction, and God continues to create those people knowing that's where they're headed. Your problem is with orthodox Christianity, not Calvinism. You act as though God is adding names to the Book of Life today. Every synergist I've dealt with on these forums has a problem with election.

Don't know why you and Hammster linked my post to God knowing the future. The Bible never teaches God wants people to reject Him. That's why names aren't added to the Book of Life, but are blotted from it.

 

[jdbear]

cygnusx1 said,
You also believe His desire is to save them but He doesn't save them ..... The difference is another issue , but it does nothing to help your premise.

The difference is the issue and affirms my position. It seems you can only explain away Jesus' desire to save souls and not save them by splitting His nature, which actually answers nothing, because the mind of the Lord is the mind of the Lord, whether it's encased in flesh or not.