Why a true omniscient cannot coexist with true free will.

[JacobHall86]

Where did you go? You were not doing anything constructive except to be critical by doing that.

Did that teach us anything so we can know more of your truth that you claim I need to know? What you said has the appearance of a flame, because it sounded smug. It only offered snideness.



Therefore, if you are going to make a claim that someone has to be wrong? You should at least have the decency back it up with what you claim is the truth.

All you are doing is taking snipes at what is said, and then hiding.

Don't hide. Tell us the truth as you see it.

Debate 101. You made a claim, I questioned it. Its not my place to back up my questioning, it is your place to either refute that I say you are wrong or concede that you are wrong. I await your response.

 

[GenemZ]

Debate 101. You made a claim, I questioned it. Its not my place to back up my questioning, it is your place to either refute that I say you are wrong or concede that you are wrong. I await your response.

Who told you that is the way it is? I stated my case. You apparently do not get it. You simply state its wrong. So? That's it? I have to prove what I said, when I do not even know what you believe? If I am to prove my point any further? I need to know what it is you believe it to be.

You have been throwing out things that are comments on what others say, but never offer what should have been said when you say its wrong. You sit back and try to get the other to do all the work. But, in this case? I see it as you do not know what you are talking about. You refuse to present what you believe for scrutiny to be shown how you might be wrong.

Until you present your side of what you believe? Its just playing a game. Not debate.

I could sit here and do the same thing with others. Simply state, that anyone who says something is wrong, and then make them try to prove it some more. But? After they placed their cards on the table?

I think you might not know what it is we are suppose to be doing here. And, it appears that you have yet to find out that everything they are teaching you at seminary is not always correct. Right?

Are you assuming everything you are being taught is correct and should be obvious for all? That all seminaries teach the same things?


In Christ, GeneZ

 

[JonF]

Who told you that is the way it is? I stated my case. You apparently do not get it. You simply state its wrong. So? That's it? I have to prove what I said, when I do not even know what you believe? If I am to prove my point any further? I need to know what it is you believe it to be.

Roughly a thousand years of philosophy, see the principle of charity.

You have been throwing out things that are comments on what others say, but never offer what should have been said when you say its wrong. You sit back and try to get the other to do all the work. But, in this case? I see it as you do not know what you are talking about. You refuse to present what you believe for scrutiny to be shown how you might be wrong.

Until you present your side of what you believe? Its just playing a game. Not debate.

I could sit here and do the same thing with others. Simply state, that anyone who says something is wrong, and then make them try to prove it some more. But? After they placed their cards on the table?

I think you might not know what it is we are suppose to be doing here. And, it appears that you have yet to find out that everything they are teaching you at seminary is not always correct. Right?

Are you assuming everything you are being taught is correct and should be obvious for all? That all seminaries teach the same things?


In Christ, GeneZ

Genez, you have a habit of writing big long monologues without actually touching on the point you are questioned on, or getting overly worked up when someone disagrees with you. What he thinks is irrelevant - he might not even be sure what he thinks, but that has nothing to do with anything. The key is he thinks you are wrong, and you have offered no support for your position. It’s a debate, not just randomly stating what we think and getting upset if someone questions us. This is called deflection. The mature way to handle this would be to post some support (that actually addresses the issue directly) and then ask how it measures up to what he thinks. Or to state you aren’t sure why you hold the position you do, but it just seems to make the most intuitive sense and then ask for his.

 

[GenemZ]

Roughly a thousand years of philosophy, see the principle of charity.

That's not an answer.

Genez, you have a habit of writing big long monologues without actually touching on the point you are questioned on, or getting overly worked up when someone disagrees with you.

I think you are missing the point of why it was said.

What he thinks is irrelevant - he might not even be sure what he thinks, but that has nothing to do with anything. The key is he thinks you are wrong, and you have offered no support for your position.

One must show how one thinks another is wrong. It would be like a policeman stopping you and handing you a ticket without telling you why its being given.

It’s a debate, not just randomly stating what we think and getting upset if someone questions us.

Don't assume how I feel about this. You do not know why I am questioning him the way I am.

This is called deflection. The mature way to handle this would be to post some support (that actually addresses the issue directly) and then ask how it measures up to what he thinks.

Not in this case. For I am not even sure what point he was disagreeing with. I am not even sure if he wanted a response.


In Christ, GeneZ

 

[JonF]

That's not an answer.

yes it is, look at your question

One must show how one thinks another is wrong. It would be like a policeman stopping you and handing you a ticket without telling you why its being given.

It is exactly like that. In your example the police are making a positive claim: that you are speeding. You have every right to ask for evidence without offering any evidence yourself why you think he is wrong. Only now people are asking you for your evidence for your positive claim.

Not in this case. For I am not even sure what point he was disagreeing with. I am not even sure if he wanted a response.

this one

 

[JacobHall86]

Who told you that is the way it is? I stated my case. You apparently do not get it. You simply state its wrong. So? That's it? I have to prove what I said, when I do not even know what you believe? If I am to prove my point any further? I need to know what it is you believe it to be.

You have been throwing out things that are comments on what others say, but never offer what should have been said when you say its wrong. You sit back and try to get the other to do all the work. But, in this case? I see it as you do not know what you are talking about. You refuse to present what you believe for scrutiny to be shown how you might be wrong.

Until you present your side of what you believe? Its just playing a game. Not debate.

I could sit here and do the same thing with others. Simply state, that anyone who says something is wrong, and then make them try to prove it some more. But? After they placed their cards on the table?

I think you might not know what it is we are suppose to be doing here. And, it appears that you have yet to find out that everything they are teaching you at seminary is not always correct. Right?

Are you assuming everything you are being taught is correct and should be obvious for all? That all seminaries teach the same things?


In Christ, GeneZ

Im a Calvinist. Thats where I stand. Now defend your position that I have called into question or concede that you are wrong.

 

[JacobHall86]

Fine, Ill restate it so that it is productive to appease the masses who are unwilling to understand formal debate practices.

Genez, your idea of common grace is a misconception based in heretical movement after heretical movement. The only men who are pro-ponents of it have all followed these heretical teachings. Pelagius. Followed by the semi-Pelagians and in the 10th century the RCC adopted his teachings and thats when the idea of salvation + works came into play because it was no longer solely about grace but what we as men can do to "Help God out" in our salvation process.

Influenced by Semi-Pelagianism, Jacob Arminius began to teach and profess ideas that were later summed up in the Five points of Arminian. With Heretical beliefs (Universal atonement being one of them) sets up the system to fail, because it is based not on the idea that God is soveriegn and in control, but that Humans deserve something.

Calvinism is based in the idea that We deserve nothing but death and Hell, but in God's has given us Grace to be saved.

 

[JimfromOhio]

God is a sovereign God and we have to understand that somehow, mysteriously, within the framework of predestination and within the framework of His sovereignty and the framework of election, which I believe in, there is a place for human freewill which is whether they respond to the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise choice that man's will is free because God is sovereign.

 

[Armistead]

Fine, Ill restate it so that it is productive to appease the masses who are unwilling to understand formal debate practices.

Genez, your idea of common grace is a misconception based in heretical movement after heretical movement. The only men who are pro-ponents of it have all followed these heretical teachings. Pelagius. Followed by the semi-Pelagians and in the 10th century the RCC adopted his teachings and thats when the idea of salvation + works came into play because it was no longer solely about grace but what we as men can do to "Help God out" in our salvation process.

Influenced by Semi-Pelagianism, Jacob Arminius began to teach and profess ideas that were later summed up in the Five points of Arminian. With Heretical beliefs (Universal atonement being one of them) sets up the system to fail, because it is based not on the idea that God is soveriegn and in control, but that Humans deserve something.

Calvinism is based in the idea that We deserve nothing but death and Hell, but in God's has given us Grace to be saved.

Do you really think God started this whole process with the intent that man deserves hell? Do you really believe you deserve eternal hell for being born?

I once was a hellfire and damnation person,until I took
greek and hebrew. It's an unfounded doctrine created to use fear to control the masses.

God knew from the beginning what all would happen. I don't think he would have comitted to a creation that put the mass of humanity into an eternal torture pit, and why some say they deserve it is beyond me. Of course that line of thinking is what the reformers used as they
killed and tortured thousands of people.

If I came to you and put a gun to your head or the head of your loved one and said " do what I say or I will shoot" You would do it. That is the concept of hell. It is basically God saying " I'm a God of love, serve me or it's eternal torture." That is not freewill, but serving out of
total fear.

The last polls I say stated that 90% of people accept God out of nothing but fear of hell, yet "perfect love cast out all fear."

I'll be glad to debate UR over hell anyday..biblically.

 

[JimfromOhio]

Do you really think God started this whole process with the intent that man deserves hell? Do you really believe you deserve eternal hell for being born?

I once was a hellfire and damnation person,until I took
greek and hebrew. It's an unfounded doctrine created to use fear to control the masses.

God knew from the beginning what all would happen. I don't think he would have comitted to a creation that put the mass of humanity into an eternal torture pit, and why some say they deserve it is beyond me. Of course that line of thinking is what the reformers used as they
killed and tortured thousands of people.

If I came to you and put a gun to your head or the head of your loved one and said " do what I say or I will shoot" You would do it. That is the concept of hell. It is basically God saying " I'm a God of love, serve me or it's eternal torture." That is not freewill, but serving out of
total fear.

The last polls I say stated that 90% of people accept God out of nothing but fear of hell, yet "perfect love cast out all fear."

I'll be glad to debate UR over hell anyday..biblically.

Grace means undeserved love and forgiveness even though we DESERVED to go to hell because of our sins. Through Adam, we are born spiritually dead (read the book of Romans). The nineteenth-century Scottish commentator John Eadie described it as a case of "death walking". Spiritually dead people are like zombies--they don't know they're dead and they're still going through the motions of living. Death is universal spiritually and also by nature. Physically we are born alive however spiritually dead. A spiritually dead person cannot will himself to live anymore than a physically dead person can will himself to come back to life. If the dead person (spiritually or physically) is to come back to life he/she will have to be resurrected by God. In the spiritual realm this means he/she must be born from above. A spiritually dead person is without the Holy Spirit, therefore we do not have the "ability" to get saved on our own. We need the Holy Spirit to prick and quicken us to be alive. Without the Holy Spirit is TOTAL DEPRAVITY". The Holy Spirit is the only person that can quicken people to be saved.

Only God through the Holy Spirit that saves the elect. We don't know who are elected to be saved. We just preach the Gospel to ALL and allow God handle the election part. Jesus loves everyone and did die for ALL but we have to remember that the atonement is only for the elected, those who are convicted by the Holy Spirit to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

 

[Armistead]

Well, if you can serve a God that picks out what few go to heaven and the masses go off to be tortured without any hope or chance..

I could not...

 

[JacobHall86]

Well, if you can serve a God that picks out what few go to heaven and the masses go off to be tortured without any hope or chance..

I could not...

So you serve God based only on the aspects you like to see, while ignoring passages that Jesus said about how the road was narrow and that only FEW will make it.

Noted. BTW, I don't want anyone to ever be able to say that I portrayed myself as only serving God because I agreed with him.

 

[GenemZ]

Fine, Ill restate it so that it is productive to appease the masses who are unwilling to understand formal debate practices.

Genez, your idea of common grace is a misconception based in heretical movement after heretical movement. The only men who are pro-ponents of it have all followed these heretical teachings. Pelagius. Followed by the semi-Pelagians and in the 10th century the RCC adopted his teachings and thats when the idea of salvation + works came into play because it was no longer solely about grace but what we as men can do to "Help God out" in our salvation process.

Influenced by Semi-Pelagianism, Jacob Arminius began to teach and profess ideas that were later summed up in the Five points of Arminian. With Heretical beliefs (Universal atonement being one of them) sets up the system to fail, because it is based not on the idea that God is soveriegn and in control, but that Humans deserve something.

Calvinism is based in the idea that We deserve nothing but death and Hell, but in God's has given us Grace to be saved.

I see...

I used the term common grace.

Did you see how I applied it? It was not how you have done.

I think you saw the term, and then all what you just wrote, shot through your mind, and ignored all the rest I said. I have no concept of "helping out God" at all.

We are saved by grace. The grace given at the moment of salvation is what I termed common grace. If God did not enable men's souls with common grace, we never would believe.

Now.... Armenians are one kettle of smelly fish. The trouble I see with Calvinists, is that they make out God to be both arbitrary and sovereign at the same time. That he punishes men that he could have saved if he wanted to, but chooses not to. That men who are saved are saved against their will to be saved. And, only after they are saved, they then accept their salvation.

The problem is that this ambiguous paradox can not be solved unless we begin to see reasons why God allowed man to fall in the first place. When God wants the church to know, he will sovereignly supply the grace needed to see what it is that we fail to see.


.

 

[GenemZ]

So you serve God based only on the aspects you like to see, while ignoring passages that Jesus said about how the road was narrow and that only FEW will make it.

Jesus spoke those words to those who were already believing in him. It was a warning against false teachings... that the way of false teachings will be "broad and wide." That there will be a false teaching out there for everyone's natural way of reasoning. "Something for everyone." Prefer legalism? Attend this church. Prefer emotionalism? Attend that church. Prefer social gospel? Prefer to believe in sinless perfection? Prefer ritual and ceremony? ...it will be 'broad and wide' as the way for the destruction of the spiritual life Christ saved us for to live in and to grow spiritually in truth.

He said that the way that leads to life (he came to give those who believe, life more abundantly) is filled with pressure (narrow) and is to be based upon strict (strait) interpretation of God's Word (no wandering off into what we naturally prefer because of personal preferences) ...

Jesus also said, that out of all who do believe? Only a few will find the life he came to give those who believe.

And, right after he said that? He warns of false prophets. False teachings. The broad and wide way.





.

 

[Armistead]

So you serve God based only on the aspects you like to see, while ignoring passages that Jesus said about how the road was narrow and that only FEW will make it.

Noted. BTW, I don't want anyone to ever be able to say that I portrayed myself as only serving God because I agreed with him.

No, I base that on long term study on the bible, not what I want to see. It was a pagan doctrine, not found in the OT and misinterpreted in the NT. Even most scholars admit to the errors during the KJV translation.

Also, I couldn't see a creator placing most of his creation it eternal torment in the end. As far as him choosing what few he wants in heaven...few religions follow that doctrine.

Look at it like this. Say God elects you, but not your children and you know they will grow up and go to eternal hell no matter what you teach them. Now, let's say God gave you the option of changing places with them. I know how much I love my children and If I had to change places to know they were in heaven, I would
do it. I love them that much. I would think that God is able to love much more than I, if indeed he is perfect love.

if God is so simple he picks who he will fill hell up with, then he is no better than Hitler..really much worse, because Hitler could only kill, not eternally torment.

There is no worse hate, bigotry or racism to put the mass of humanity into eternal torture...just because
you can.

Of course it's always the so called elect that follow this doctrine. What if you were not part of the elect.

http://www.growthingod.org.uk/unirec.htm

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive’ (1 Cor 15: 22-24).


‘...God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of believers’ (1 Tim 4: 10). "


‘For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him (Jesus), and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.’ (Col 1: 19, 20).
All means all to me.

 

[JonF]

Do you really think God started this whole process with the intent that man deserves hell? Do you really believe you deserve eternal hell for being born?

I once was a hellfire and damnation person,until I took
greek and hebrew. It's an unfounded doctrine created to use fear to control the masses.

God knew from the beginning what all would happen. I don't think he would have comitted to a creation that put the mass of humanity into an eternal torture pit, and why some say they deserve it is beyond me. Of course that line of thinking is what the reformers used as they
killed and tortured thousands of people.

If I came to you and put a gun to your head or the head of your loved one and said " do what I say or I will shoot" You would do it. That is the concept of hell. It is basically God saying " I'm a God of love, serve me or it's eternal torture." That is not freewill, but serving out of
total fear.

The last polls I say stated that 90% of people accept God out of nothing but fear of hell, yet "perfect love cast out all fear."

I'll be glad to debate UR over hell anyday..biblically.

This whole post is argued based on what how you think it should be. What does the bible say? Also Calvinism resolves two issues with Christian conversions that other theological systems can’t. One being conversion based on fear of hell: how can we convert out of fear if we don’t cause ourselves to convert? The other issue being that from the Calvinist perspective a believers fundamental purpose on earth is to glorify God, not win over converts.

 

[JacobHall86]

No, I base that on long term study on the bible, not what I want to see. It was a pagan doctrine, not found in the OT and misinterpreted in the NT. Even most scholars admit to the errors during the KJV translation.

Also, I couldn't see a creator placing most of his creation it eternal torment in the end. As far as him choosing what few he wants in heaven...few religions follow that doctrine.

Look at it like this. Say God elects you, but not your children and you know they will grow up and go to eternal hell no matter what you teach them. Now, let's say God gave you the option of changing places with them. I know how much I love my children and If I had to change places to know they were in heaven, I would
do it. I love them that much. I would think that God is able to love much more than I, if indeed he is perfect love.

if God is so simple he picks who he will fill hell up with, then he is no better than Hitler..really much worse, because Hitler could only kill, not eternally torment.

There is no worse hate, bigotry or racism to put the mass of humanity into eternal torture...just because
you can.

Of course it's always the so called elect that follow this doctrine. What if you were not part of the elect.

http://www.growthingod.org.uk/unirec.htm

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive’ (1 Cor 15: 22-24).


‘...God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of believers’ (1 Tim 4: 10). "


‘For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him (Jesus), and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.’ (Col 1: 19, 20).
All means all to me.

Wow, Emotional response.

 

[GenemZ]

God is a sovereign God and we have to understand that somehow, mysteriously, within the framework of predestination and within the framework of His sovereignty and the framework of election, which I believe in, there is a place for human freewill which is whether they respond to the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

There is a difference between "free will."

And.... having a "freed will."

When it comes to our thoughts and feelings towards God, without grace... man could never believe in Christ.

God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise choice that man's will is free because God is sovereign.

God's sovereignty is what determines how he will save men. Not, who will be saved.

God's sovereignty does not determine who will believe, but how they will be saved when he knows they will believe.

1 Peter 1:10 (New International Version)
​

"Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care."


​

God sovereignly chose us to receive a special grace we have been given when we believe. That special grace is to be placed in union with Christ! We have been sealed and indwelled by the Holy Spirit as its guarantee!


In part, this is what the grace we received indicates...


As the woman was in Adam's side before she was given to Adam? We are now IN CHRIST awaiting to be revealed as his bride! We are right now 'in Christ.'

The physical body we now see on earth was crucified with Christ, and we no longer live, but Christ lives in us by faith!

Ephesians 2:6 (New American Standard Bible)
​

"and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus"


​

OT saints were not chosen by God to be in Christ before the foundations of the world. We have been sovereignly chosen and predestined to receive this salvation. OT saints were not chosen for this salvation. Their salvation is to be different than ours in Eternity. God's sovereign choice! If God wanted to, he could have had Moses be born today and be a great Christian Bible teacher.

But, God did not choose that to be. He chose Moses to be in the dispensation of Israel. To be a Jew. To be a Jew who was awaiting the Messiah who would rule OVER them in the Kingdom. We have, in contrast, been chosen to be in Christ, so we can reign WITH Christ in the Kingdom.

Certain denominations believe God chose us to believe. He choses to save us on the bases of his will alone. They fail to see that what God predestined for us would be what our salvation was to include when we would believe. They cross the wires and end up with a cold and detached view of a sovereign God who makes no sense in regards to being a God of Love.




.

 

[JacobHall86]

God's sovereignty is what determines how he will save men. Not, who will be saved.

God's sovereignty does not determine who will believe, but how they will be saved when he knows they will believe.

So you have limited Gods Foreknowledge and question whether or not he knows when someone will be saved?

Do you think God knows the time of our Birth and Death?

 

[JimfromOhio]

There is a difference between "free will."

And.... having a "freed will."

When it comes to our thoughts and feelings towards God, without grace... man could never believe in Christ.


God's sovereignty is what determines how he will save men. Not, who will be saved.

God's sovereignty does not determine who will believe, but how they will be saved when he knows they will believe.

1 Peter 1:10 (New International Version)
​

"Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care."


​

God sovereignly chose us to receive a special grace we have been given when we believe. That special grace is to be placed in union with Christ! We have been sealed and indwelled by the Holy Spirit as its guarantee!


In part, this is what the grace we received indicates...


As the woman was in Adam's side before she was given to Adam? We are now IN CHRIST awaiting to be revealed as his bride! We are right now 'in Christ.'

The physical body we now see on earth was crucified with Christ, and we no longer live, but Christ lives in us by faith!

Ephesians 2:6 (New American Standard Bible)
​

"and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus"


​

OT saints were not chosen by God to be in Christ before the foundations of the world. We have been sovereignly chosen and predestined to receive this salvation. OT saints were not chosen for this salvation. Their salvation is to be different than ours in Eternity. God's sovereign choice! If God wanted to, he could have had Moses be born today and be a great Christian Bible teacher.

But, God did not choose that to be. He chose Moses to be in the dispensation of Israel. To be a Jew. To be a Jew who was awaiting the Messiah who would rule OVER them in the Kingdom. We have, in contrast, been chosen to be in Christ, so we can reign WITH Christ in the Kingdom.

Certain denominations believe God chose us to believe. He choses to save us on the bases of his will alone. They fail to see that what God predestined for us would be what our salvation was to include when we would believe. They cross the wires and end up with a cold and detached view of a sovereign God who makes no sense in regards to being a God of Love.




.

On the topic of "Doctrine of Salvation", you and I will always disagree. At this point, I will agree to disagree and move on since I dealt with this topic with you in the past.