Yes that's what I said.
Yes by grace, not by choosing to do the law, which was presented as proof of mans ability to choose in an earlier post.
Grubal, I don't know how to say this, but you don't answer hardly any of my questions if any. You miss all the points I make and dodge the clear implications. I don't think you even really feel it's been nice talking to me. It is frustrating for me and I would ask you to put yourself in my shoes.
You presented scripture to prove we choose, or in fact Glorydaz did, but you agreed. You provided the Old Testament, choose life choose God scriptures as proof. But then you admit men could not choose life which makes your scriptural evidence, proof of the exact opposite. So the very scripture you present proves the opposite; that men are actually slaves of sin in the will of the flesh and not free to choose to live and yet you still do not agree with me. Why?
For it is clear to me that God said to not eat of the tree of good and evil or we would die. He is not a liar and so there is no way we could be free to choose to live in any manner or God would be a liar.
Granted God made a way. But this way is one where a price was paid by someone else to die in our stead. I've studied freewill theology my whole life. Let me tell you why.
Because there is an inherent judgment by which we judge ourselves according to how we judge. For example. How fair is it that Jesus suffered for my sin if I freely and knowingly chose to sin? Wouldn't any thief gladly let someone else take the rap for their crime? If we have a freewill as you say, then I would not trade God's only begotten son to the slaughter in order to save myself. Any thief would but I wouldn't. My best judgment is I would rather accept my just death as I deserve rather than see any man pay for my sins, much less the son of God. Otherwise in my conscience I am damned for eternity.
But, if on the other hand, mankind was deceived in innocence into serving sin and was now trapped so he could not do otherwise. Then I could accept that Jesus died on my behalf to rescue me from death because it was an act of loving pardon due to the fact that I had been deceived from the beginning. Then I am not a thief in accepting his sacrifice for mankind and my conscience is clean. So it is that Jesus said, forgive them they know not what they do, and this is why I believe Jesus would not condemn anyone. Likewise after coming to Christ and accepting his sacrifice for me because of this circumstance, I would be obligated to forgive all those who tresspass against me for the same reasons. I would love my enemies because I know they can't help it. I would turn the other cheek and pray for those who despise me and persecute me. Only under this scenario can I see how a man could be presented holy and blameless before God. This to me is the cup of Christ in which I will gladly and most thankfully share. But the cup that says we freely sin and is of the mind of a thief I will not drink, for I would drink damnation to myself.
I believe these two scenarios are presented by the two thieves differing perspectives on the two opposite sides of the cross of Christ.
Last edited by a moderator:
In my book those terms are only for description not a branding of folks...Sharing the campfire makes for good smores