FREE WILL

[childeye]

when the lord convicts you of sin do you always repent so easily?

What else is there? There's only one way to life, joy and happiness and no one can convince me otherwise.

i have seen me shot in war and watch the taliban unload into their buddy at point blank range to the head and had to fake death. this man refused christ.

you speak of horrors that would harden any mans heart, except for the man Jesus who submitted to such horrors and yet forgave.

any gift can be returned. its not likely but then why would the possibility of it be listed if its impossible?

For men it is not possible, but for God anything is possible.

i was adressing the member who was guilty of the deed and no one else dont be concerned you arent that person.

Sorry none of my business then.

 

[Former Christian]

Adullam

You said, “G o d d e s i r e s a l l t o b e s a v e d ! Is that expanded enough? â€

LOL Are you making fun of my impediment? LOL

Not quite what I had in mind. I meant, are there any additional points that you can add to what I said?

FC

 

[Former Christian]

ivdavid

You said, “God is sovereign, not partial.â€

So far so good.


You said, “Say, this was the first criminal offence of the first murderer while the second murderer had already murdered 5 people. Now if the king showed mercy on the basis of their past record, then he is being partial.â€

God is showing mercy based on our past record. God would not have to show mercy if it were not for our past record. In Adam we are all condemned. That is the record. And we are all condemned so that God can show mercy on all. God does not have to show mercy at all. The reason he does is because of another attribute, God so loved.

You said, “Sovereignty is not wrong - partiality is.â€

That depends. Sovereignty is wrong when it is exercised without mercy. Partiality is wrong when it is exercised with discrimination. If God is showing mercy only to a select few, then he is discriminating against the rest. And that would be being partial by discrimination. God is sovereign. But that isn’t all that he is. God is impartial in that he treats all the same in regards to salvation. He does not choose some to be saved and others to not be saved. God does practice partiality when he chooses to use certain people to further his eternal purpose. Jacob instead of Esau, or the choosing of Paul to be one of the Apostles of Jesus Christ, which is why I believe that Paul was the one Jesus chose to replace Judas, not Matthias.

We have to be careful not to practice emphasis. The Calvinists emphasize the sovereignty of God to such an extent that they have deemphasized other attributes of God. It gives them a lopsided view of some things. I don’t mean to pick on the Calvinists. Most denominational distinctions can be attributed to the emphasis of some idea or another. When a doctrinal standard is based on an emphasis, it is the natural tendency to build everything around that emphasis. Calvinists, along with adherents of other denominations, don't understand the true nature of their denomination.

And I must point out that your idea pretty much condemns the justice system of the sovereign state of the United States of America, wherein punishments are tailored to fit the crime and the three strikes law punishes those who consistently commit crimes more severely.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Childeye

I am ashamed to say that I can’t adequately answer your post. I admit it went way over my head.

But I can answer this.

You said, “here is the problem. We disagree on the definition of free will. Freewill in theology according to websters unabbridged dictionary is the ability to freely choose without any restraing or compelling powers and apart from any antecedent events.â€

In that we agree, that is, we disagree on the definition of free will. I’m going by my Oxford Dictionary. And it defines free will in this way, “the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.†A little different from the Webster definition. The difference seems to be that free will is nullified, according to the Webster definition, if there is any outside influence; whereas in the Oxford definition, past outside influence is irrelevant to the present ability to exercise free will. Makes it kind of hard to hold a conversation when our definitions of the words we use are different.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Jasoncran

You said, “one can harden ones heart to the lord. i have done that and will show examples of that. thus why i dont buy the idea of eternal security. …. a man is sick jesus gives him the cure by showing what diseases he has and tell hims here take this too cure yourself. its up to the sick to take the cure.â€


I believe in the idea of eternal security because I base my salvation on the strength of the person who is Jesus Christ and what that person has done, rather than on my unfortunate tendency to consistently stumble and do evil. What God offers in regard to salvation is a free gift. If we lose the gift every time we stumble, then God must offer the gift again. I see no indication that God does that. Which would make me believe a once lost always lost doctrine, that is, after the initial receipt of the gift, if we lost the gift, there would be no more chances because there would be no more gifts. In the words of Hebrews 10:26-27, “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.†(KJV) Any application of 1 John 1:9 would be null and void because it would be meaningless. Further, I don’t think that we have the ability to jump in and out of being in Christ, which is what we would have to have in order to lose our salvation.

But take heart. Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and half of Protestantism agrees with you. That really doesn’t mean anything in regard to which view is true. Just want to let you know you aren’t alone, currently or historically. And probably this issue will be a controversy till Christ comes again.

It is true that we have to receive the cure in order to be cured. That is the true meaning of the Greek word behind the English word repent. The meaning today is an interpretation. To turn towards God and stop sinning is not the meaning of the Greek word. The actual meaning of the Greek word is to change ones mind. We initially believe, and are taught from little children, that we are just human and that there is nothing wrong with us otherwise. When God reveals that we are sick and that he has the cure for our sickness, we have to change our minds about ourselves, about God, and about the need for a cure. As you said, it is up to the sick to take the cure. The cure is to be in Christ.

You said, “i have seen me shot in war and watch the taliban unload into their buddy at point blank range to the head and had to fake death. this man refused christ.â€

I have not experienced the atrocities of war as experienced by an American soldier, nor the atrocities of the war on the streets of LA as experienced by a LA policeman. I can’t emphasize or identify with you in any way in that regard. But that doesn’t mean that I can’t understand something of the nature of man or the similarities and differences of the son of man in his relationship to the rest of humanity. As the Son of God, Jesus Christ is infinitely more than what man is; and as the son of man, he is just as man is. Jesus can be our savior because he is both the son of God and the son of man. In the era of the first Christian divisions (fourth to ninth centuries), they got a lot of things wrong simply because they emphasized this or that. But what they said about Jesus Christ being both Divine and human simultaneously, both fully man and fully God, that I agree with. Not because I understand it or have no ability to emphasize this verse of the Bible or that verse of the Bible. Simply because from what I read in the Bible as a whole, I find it to be true.

The only reason that the Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe in the Divinity of Christ is because they can’t understand how Jesus can be both God and man simultaneously. So they emphasize what they can understand, the humanity of Jesus Christ. That makes them heretical and cultic in the eyes of the Trinitarian believers of Christianity. But I know and understand the Jehovah’s Witnesses very well. And I have found that due to their emphasis, they understand Jesus as the son of men far better than the Trinitarians who emphasize the Divinity of Christ. And the reverse is true in regard to the Trinitarians. They can understand Jesus as the son of God far better than the Jehovah’s Witnesses. To me this is just another example of of the effects of the denominational nature of Christianity.

FC

 

[childeye]

Childeye

I am ashamed to say that I can’t adequately answer your post. I admit it went way over my head.

But I can answer this.

You said, “here is the problem. We disagree on the definition of free will. Freewill in theology according to websters unabbridged dictionary is the ability to freely choose without any restraing or compelling powers and apart from any antecedent events.”

In that we agree, that is, we disagree on the definition of free will. I’m going by my Oxford Dictionary. And it defines free will in this way, “the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.” A little different from the Webster definition. The difference seems to be that free will is nullified, according to the Webster definition, if there is any outside influence; whereas in the Oxford definition, past outside influence is irrelevant to the present ability to exercise free will. Makes it kind of hard to hold a conversation when our definitions of the words we use are different.

FC

There are many differing definitions of freewill and any discussion of the term is futile when we cannot arrive at a mutual agreement of terms. I believe men are deceived through a corrupt image of god which compromises one's ability to reason pertaining to morality. Only by believing in the Christ as the True Image of God can one reason and thereby choose in full knowledge of the Truth. Either way a man is subject to either ignorance or knowledge of God. Hence Jesus said the Truth will set you free. Once seeing the Truth if a man willingly departs from it, he cannot go back according to scripture. I refrain from calling such a choice freedom. Regarding the Oxford dictionary; it claims actions made out of necessity is a disqualifier. The carnal mind cannot be subject to God and therefore must by necessity be subserviant to sin. Without Christ the fate of man is death and Jesus claimed it must be given by God to come to Christ. One cannot confess him as Lord without the Holy Spirit.

 

[ivdavid]

I'll split my response in 2 parts...

God is showing mercy based on our past record.

Let me clarify what I meant, by rephrasing that - God is merciful over our past record - but His mercy is not based on it. The object of His mercy is our past record - but our record does not influence His mercy in any way. From what you've written following your above statement, I'm pretty sure you too do not believe God to be obligated in any way - especially in a way to be 'more' merciful to a 'lesser' criminal than a 'grave' criminal. So, I think we're agreed on this so far.

Sovereignty is wrong when it is exercised without mercy.

I am not able to understand exactly what you mean by this - please, could you elaborate? Let us simply refer to the example we're discussing - If the king sovereignly chose not to be merciful to the 2 murderers, is that wrong? Because in such a case, the king is being sovereign in his decision but he chooses to render justice rather than his mercy. Is such sovereignty wrong? I think you didn't mean it this way - I think you felt it was wrong coupled with discrimination which we shall come to now -

Partiality is wrong when it is exercised with discrimination.

Can partiality ever be right? You yourself said God is not a respecter of persons and that's what I've understood partiality as - to be a respecter of persons.

God does practice partiality when he chooses to use certain people to further his eternal purpose. Jacob instead of Esau...

Pardon my reluctance to move on ahead without clarifying what we mean by anything we say - because if we end up using the same words to mean different things, we are not communicating much. I have stated what partiality means to me in my previous post. I take it to be wrong at all times because it differentiates on the basis of individual's characteristics. God is not a respecter of persons and hence can never be partial. When He chose Jacob and not Esau, He was being sovereign, not partial. His decision had no basis on what Jacob or Esau had done - it was purely His own choice, independent of who was elder and independent of their good or bad works.

In light of all the above, I think you mean "sovereignty is wrong when it is exercised with discrimination". I'll take that - I agree with you.
Continued...

 

[ivdavid]

...Continuing,

If God is showing mercy only to a select few, then he is discriminating against the rest. And that would be being partial by discrimination.

If God showed mercy only to a select few - I'd say He's being sovereign. But we agreed upon the fact that "sovereignty with discrimination is wrong". What do we mean by 'discrimination'?
A working definition could be - "treating somebody less fairly than others" [oxford].

And how do you suppose what is fair here - Is God committing any injustice to anybody in his act of sovereignty? The ones who do not receive His mercy are anyway not entitled to it just as the ones who do receive are not entitled to it. Mercy can never be merited/deserved by its very definition. What is "fair" is that we be condemned forever. When we receive mercy from that condition, it's not something we deserve - it's unmerited, undeserving grace. No person can claim mercy on the grounds of fairness and equality because fundamentally, mercy is something one can never claim. Mercy in its very essence is against justice - but God in His wisdom has balanced both through His Son Jesus Christ. I hope you do agree that mercy is a self-contained trait which has no bearing or substance on the person receiving mercy.

We have to be careful not to practice emphasis.

I agree with you - the way I think you have intended it. God's trait of sovereignty must not be solely focused on at the cost of His other infinitely precious good traits - such as love, wisdom,mercy,power and so on. I've dealt with this not to lord this trait of His over His others - but because this is the very explanation to the questions being raised on this thread. The OP wanted to know why she received mercy while the person next to her didn't - and being a valid question, the answers were split between (A) the person next to her having chosen to not do what she did and (B) God having mercy on her then and not the other person yet. The side supporting the latter cry out against the first explanation claiming they have not 'done' anything that the other person failed to do. The side supporting the former have cried out against implying God to be partial in the second explanation. Given this context, I have written about God's sovereignty and not for any other lopsided focus. Hope that clears the air.

And I must point out that your idea pretty much condemns the justice system of the sovereign state of the United States of America, wherein punishments are tailored to fit the crime and the three strikes law punishes those who consistently commit crimes more severely.

Whoa...when you bring in us mortals in a real sense, the analogies between God and us break down. Look at your own statement - do you really think, in the absolute sense, that USA is sovereign?

And it's unfair of you to compare my ideas of mercy with the US idea of justice. You will have to differentiate between justice and mercy. Justice being tailored to fit the nature of the crime is absolutely consistent with what I'm saying. A harsher crime to the one who sins more. Capernaum gets it worse than sodom. The servant who knows and sins gets more lashings than the one who doesn't know and sins. That is justice.

But when it comes to mercy, I'm saying all these break down. The king showing mercy to the one with 1 murder count and to the other with 5 murder counts is the same. It's not based on who they are or what they did - it is completely based on who the person showing mercy and compassion is. The owner of the field pays what each one deserves - the fact that he also gave more to a select few does in no manner seem wrong because he chose to show compassion to them without committing any injustice to the ones he didn't pay more to.

 

[jasoncran]

Jasoncran

You said, “one can harden ones heart to the lord. i have done that and will show examples of that. thus why i dont buy the idea of eternal security. …. a man is sick jesus gives him the cure by showing what diseases he has and tell hims here take this too cure yourself. its up to the sick to take the cure.”


I believe in the idea of eternal security because I base my salvation on the strength of the person who is Jesus Christ and what that person has done, rather than on my unfortunate tendency to consistently stumble and do evil. What God offers in regard to salvation is a free gift. If we lose the gift every time we stumble, then God must offer the gift again. I see no indication that God does that. Which would make me believe a once lost always lost doctrine, that is, after the initial receipt of the gift, if we lost the gift, there would be no more chances because there would be no more gifts. In the words of Hebrews 10:26-27, “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.” (KJV) Any application of 1 John 1:9 would be null and void because it would be meaningless. Further, I don’t think that we have the ability to jump in and out of being in Christ, which is what we would have to have in order to lose our salvation.

But take heart. Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and half of Protestantism agrees with you. That really doesn’t mean anything in regard to which view is true. Just want to let you know you aren’t alone, currently or historically. And probably this issue will be a controversy till Christ comes again.

It is true that we have to receive the cure in order to be cured. That is the true meaning of the Greek word behind the English word repent. The meaning today is an interpretation. To turn towards God and stop sinning is not the meaning of the Greek word. The actual meaning of the Greek word is to change ones mind. We initially believe, and are taught from little children, that we are just human and that there is nothing wrong with us otherwise. When God reveals that we are sick and that he has the cure for our sickness, we have to change our minds about ourselves, about God, and about the need for a cure. As you said, it is up to the sick to take the cure. The cure is to be in Christ.

You said, “i have seen me shot in war and watch the taliban unload into their buddy at point blank range to the head and had to fake death. this man refused christ.”

I have not experienced the atrocities of war as experienced by an American soldier, nor the atrocities of the war on the streets of LA as experienced by a LA policeman. I can’t emphasize or identify with you in any way in that regard. But that doesn’t mean that I can’t understand something of the nature of man or the similarities and differences of the son of man in his relationship to the rest of humanity. As the Son of God, Jesus Christ is infinitely more than what man is; and as the son of man, he is just as man is. Jesus can be our savior because he is both the son of God and the son of man. In the era of the first Christian divisions (fourth to ninth centuries), they got a lot of things wrong simply because they emphasized this or that. But what they said about Jesus Christ being both Divine and human simultaneously, both fully man and fully God, that I agree with. Not because I understand it or have no ability to emphasize this verse of the Bible or that verse of the Bible. Simply because from what I read in the Bible as a whole, I find it to be true.

The only reason that the Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe in the Divinity of Christ is because they can’t understand how Jesus can be both God and man simultaneously. So they emphasize what they can understand, the humanity of Jesus Christ. That makes them heretical and cultic in the eyes of the Trinitarian believers of Christianity. But I know and understand the Jehovah’s Witnesses very well. And I have found that due to their emphasis, they understand Jesus as the son of men far better than the Trinitarians who emphasize the Divinity of Christ. And the reverse is true in regard to the Trinitarians. They can understand Jesus as the son of God far better than the Jehovah’s Witnesses. To me this is just another example of of the effects of the denominational nature of Christianity.

FC

i have flipped flopped on eternal security before. i didnt buy into it till the last time i listend to adrain rogers. the reason i am against that idea now is where jesus says" he that denieth me not ,him i will not blot out of the book of life"


i didnt believe in the trinity nor the holy spirit or the divinity of christ.

if you want to debate or discuss jws and their doctrine i am game.most of it i will remember as i was indoctrinated into that cult for yrs.

its the whole reason why i didnt go to college for yrs, vote, and give blood when i could.

 

[Elijah674]

Free Will is my thought here!
Your posting (today?;)) does seem to agree with the fact that the Godhead does indeed DOCUMENT that one of the two ways [ONLY] are FALSE TEACHING, and is indeed adding to or taking away from THEIR WORD, right? Matt. 6:24, Eccl. 3:14 + Rev. 22:18-19's Book of Life is the END RESULT of such. Compare God's WORD in Exod. 32:33 as stated fact.

And, surely we can only be held accountable for the knowledge that the Holy Spirit convicts us of as individuals. But here is one of only two teachings, one is false doctrine being taught for truth by a whole denomination for well past the Holy Spirit's STRIVING of 120 years, as was the case of Gen. 6:3.

And the name will be removed from the Book of Life for doing this. This will find many in hell if God is BELIEVED who teach this teaching, whichever is correct, huh! But, remember that it was the Holy Spirit that could not budge these ones of Gen. 6:3 before the Ark Door of 'their' Probation Closed! Compare Matt. 25:10.

One of these (only) TWO Teachings has got to be wrong, huh! (and that is only one false doctrine of these Rev. 17:1-5 ones!)

--Elijah

 

[childeye]

The issue is freewill. Why does one man choose one direction and another man choose opposite? Freewill evades the question by answering "because he can". The root thought process of cause and affect are effectively negated in a man's reasoning. Truth becomes irrelevant or rather freewill becomes the truth. What a perilous ambiguity.

Mankind was decieved by Satan into eating the fruit which altered their perspective and brought death. Cain killed Abel out of profound jealousy that came from the knowledge of good and evil. Noah built an ark to spare his family from the flood sent by God. Abraham was chosen by God to be the Father of many nations and bring forth the Christ. God delivered the Israelites from Pharoah through great miracles. God institutes the law and with life or death on the line, nobody can keep it. The Israelites wandered the dessert for forty years to extinguish the generation of murmurers. The walls of Jericho were brought down. Gideon won impossible battles. Sampson defeated armies. David slew Goliath. The Christ was born of a Virgin. Jesus was crucified by the ones who had been destined to bring him forth. Those predestined by God recieved the Christ through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. Satan was cast out of Heaven and is trapped on earth where he proceeds to persecute the witnesses of Christ.

Now I ask you. How are any of these events a lesson in Freewill?

 

[Former Christian]

Childeye

You said, “There are many differing definitions of freewill and any discussion of the term is futile when we cannot arrive at a mutual agreement of terms. I believe men are deceived through a corrupt image of god which compromises one's ability to reason pertaining to morality. Only by believing in the Christ as the True Image of God can one reason and thereby choose in full knowledge of the Truth. Either way a man is subject to either ignorance or knowledge of God. Hence Jesus said the Truth will set you free. Once seeing the Truth if a man willingly departs from it, he cannot go back according to scripture. I refrain from calling such a choice freedom. Regarding the Oxford dictionary; it claims actions made out of necessity is a disqualifier. The carnal mind cannot be subject to God and therefore must by necessity be subserviant to sin. Without Christ the fate of man is death and Jesus claimed it must be given by God to come to Christ. One cannot confess him as Lord without the Holy Spirit.â€

I agree with most of what you said. I do believe that apart from the grace of God in his enabling man to know right from wrong through conscience and enabling man to know the meaning of the gospel, it would be impossible for man to know anything rightly. I don’t believe that a person must be saved or in Christ before he can understand basic revealed truth. It is not according to the Bible, it is not according to common experience.

In regard to your latest post (#131), I can only respond that the fall does not imply that God can’t overcome the effects of the fall so that man can understand the gospel. And I believe that he has done so. I don’t believe in the complete depravation of humanity as do the Calvinists. Humanity is degraded, not totally depraved. Which even Paul agrees with (Rom 2:13-16). God condemns all so that he might save all. The gospel is for all. It would do no good to tell everyone to repent, if only a few had the ability to respond. God spoke to Cain as though he could understand what he was saying. That would be futile if Cain was totally depraved. And I don’t think that God would engage in futile activities.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Ivdavid

Sovereignty is wrong when it is exercised without mercy. Sovereignty without mercy is arrogant discrimination.

According to my Oxford dictionary partiality means, “unfair bias in favour of one thing or person compared with another or a particular liking or fondness for something†According to that definition, God never does anything in that sense. So I must revise what I said. God exercised choice according to his knowledge and purpose in his choice of Jacob over Esau. I don’t know what the word is that would cover that. It is not partiality.

You said, “Whoa...when you bring in us mortals in a real sense, the analogies between God and us break down. Look at your own statement - do you really think, in the absolute sense, that USA is sovereign?â€

In relation to other nations, yes, America is sovereign. And it was only in that sense that I was speaking. What is true of the sovereignty of God is true for the sovereignty of a nation. I am comparing your ideas of Divine justice with the ideas of earthly justice. In either case, the sense of mercy would be the same. Otherwise we have no frame of reference to understand the mercy of God.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Jasoncran

Sounds like you’re having as rough a time of it as I am.

I’m not familiar with the verse, “he that denieth me not ,him i will not blot out of the book of life†Sounds like something in Revelation. What is the verse?

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Elijah674

Consider the possibility that both ideas are wrong and that maybe a different idea encompassing elements of both is correct.

FC

 

[childeye]

Childeye

You said, “There are many differing definitions of freewill and any discussion of the term is futile when we cannot arrive at a mutual agreement of terms. I believe men are deceived through a corrupt image of god which compromises one's ability to reason pertaining to morality. Only by believing in the Christ as the True Image of God can one reason and thereby choose in full knowledge of the Truth. Either way a man is subject to either ignorance or knowledge of God. Hence Jesus said the Truth will set you free. Once seeing the Truth if a man willingly departs from it, he cannot go back according to scripture. I refrain from calling such a choice freedom. Regarding the Oxford dictionary; it claims actions made out of necessity is a disqualifier. The carnal mind cannot be subject to God and therefore must by necessity be subserviant to sin. Without Christ the fate of man is death and Jesus claimed it must be given by God to come to Christ. One cannot confess him as Lord without the Holy Spirit.â€

I agree with most of what you said. I do believe that apart from the grace of God in his enabling man to know right from wrong through conscience and enabling man to know the meaning of the gospel, it would be impossible for man to know anything rightly. I don’t believe that a person must be saved or in Christ before he can understand basic revealed truth. It is not according to the Bible, it is not according to common experience.

In regard to your latest post (#131), I can only respond that the fall does not imply that God can’t overcome the effects of the fall so that man can understand the gospel. And I believe that he has done so. I don’t believe in the complete depravation of humanity as do the Calvinists. Humanity is degraded, not totally depraved. Which even Paul agrees with (Rom 2:13-16). God condemns all so that he might save all. The gospel is for all. It would do no good to tell everyone to repent, if only a few had the ability to respond. God spoke to Cain as though he could understand what he was saying. That would be futile if Cain was totally depraved. And I don’t think that God would engage in futile activities.

FC

Once again semantics are at play. The words depravity, and repent in my view are not being applied correctly when I read what you say. Believe it or not, your statement that belief in Christ is not necessary to understand basic revealed Truth is an oxymoron, revealing that you do not comprehend what a Christ is. I say this out of sincere Love.

 

[ivdavid]

FC,

Thank you for clarifying.

While we're at it, let's come to a conclusion on what we mean by mercy, sovereignty etc.

As a working definition again, I'd think 'sovereignty' to be one's ability to take decisions or make choices without being influenced by any external factors.

'Mercy' would be the waiving of a deserving punishment or loss to somebody.

Would you agree with these? And if so, could you then elaborate on why you feel sovereignty in the absence of mercy is wrong.

Take the illustration - if the king chose to render justice to the murderer based on his sovereign will, is he doing wrong because he didn't show mercy when he could have? This is a case of sovereignty without mercy and I'm unable to find anything wrong here - I'd like to understand how you look at it.

 

[jasoncran]

Jasoncran

Sounds like you’re having as rough a time of it as I am.

I’m not familiar with the verse, “he that denieth me not ,him i will not blot out of the book of life†Sounds like something in Revelation. What is the verse?

FC

close to this

revalation 3

And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.

2Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God.
3Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.
4Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy. 5He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.


fc. i am curious you have claimed that you are no longer a christian yet you want eternal security? if you are that concerned why not repent and come back?

 

[Elijah674]

FC,

Thank you for clarifying.

While we're at it, let's come to a conclusion on what we mean by mercy, sovereignty etc.

As a working definition again, I'd think 'sovereignty' to be one's ability to take decisions or make choices without being influenced by any external factors.

'Mercy' would be the waiving of a deserving punishment or loss to somebody.

Would you agree with these? And if so, could you then elaborate on why you feel sovereignty in the absence of mercy is wrong.

Take the illustration - if the king chose to render justice to the murderer based on his sovereign will, is he doing wrong because he didn't show mercy when he could have? This is a case of sovereignty without mercy and I'm unable to find anything wrong here - I'd like to understand how you look at it.

Hi, I disagree with this remark of yours, you post says.. 'While we're at it, let's come to a conclusion on what we mean by mercy, sovereignty etc.

As a working definition again, I'd think 'sovereignty' to be one's ability to take decisions or make choices without being influenced by any external factors.'

If I understand you correctly? I say this because we still are all the Godhead's creation. And we are not brain dead robots. And I find it impossible to ever find at the start of mankinds sin where God quite STRIVING with any of mankind until there was no more purpose to do so. Gen. 6:3 has it for documentation of 120 years. And yes, surely the sin against the Holy Ghost takes time! James 1:15 & Psalms 19:13. And even Cain was given opportunity to repent! Gen. 4:7

--Elijah

 

[xounstaer]

i didnt read all (its ten pages)

i remember myself saying i dont need free will if i got gods will or the will of the holy spirit/ghost i be better of.

i gues it's still a form of free will.
but when is will actually free: