Bible Contradictions 2.0

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Where is your proof that the body of Christ, the Church is only the largest charitable organization in the world. >>>[/quote]You are. Pat is and just about every other Catholic I’ve ever encountered who almost universally put forward as fruit a carnal life, a filthy mouth, ironically enough a satanic gospel of moralistic works and a bunch of worse than worthless self righteous “charity”.

You can’t help it. Your gospel has no power except to deceive. It leaves men just as they were, even while locked away in some idiotic monastery, friary or convent. It throws a very thin coat of transparent paint on their flesh and declares them Christians because they are in communion with a rank impostor calling himself the “vicar of Christ”.

That is the proof (one of em and one of the greatest) that that abomination in Rome is neither the body of Christ nor His church. A non stop historical parade of corruption, perversion and unchanged lives. The unholy tradition/theology goes hand in hand with them an unending self perpetuating machine of anti Christian evil. The gates of hell prevailed against that thing a long LONG time ago.
[/quote]

That is not proof, that is rhetoric and specifically an appeal to pathos. Show me proof that my gospel has now power. How does it leave men where they are, where is your proof? And, what is your proof that monasteries are “idiotic” you think serving God and his people is idiotic?

Keep it up, Tirib, keep calling me part of the whore of Babylon, and I’m just going to ignore you. I know exactly what you’re talking about Tirib and it’s bigotry. My heart and mind belong to Christ, don’t insult me.

So you do believe that only your Calvinist Church is the Church which Christ’ built himself. You finally admit it.[/quote]

I have been asking for proof for a long time now…You won’t see it, he’ll just level insults at us, because he has no proof, at all.

22

[quote]pat wrote:
<<< A long post >>>
[/quote]Except for a splendid cut n paste job very accurately and concisely spelling out the biblical doctrine of total depravity (quite good actually) you are spectacularly clueless once again. I mean as in 200 miles off the coast clueless. Your whole head is about to burst into flames from that light Pat and you continue to deny it’s there. The church you are now a part of has nothing whatever to do with the holy risen Christ or the apostle Peter for that matter. You’re like a Catholic pull string doll. You have zero understanding of the biblical gospel or God whatsoever. None.

23

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
<<< A long post >>>
[/quote]Except for a splendid cut n paste job very accurately and concisely spelling out the biblical doctrine of total depravity (quite good actually) you are spectacularly clueless once again. I mean as in 200 miles off the coast clueless. Your whole head is about to burst into flames from that light Pat and you continue to deny it’s there. The church you are now a part of has nothing whatever to do with the holy risen Christ or the apostle Peter for that matter. You’re like a Catholic pull string doll. You have zero understanding of the biblical gospel or God whatsoever. None.
[/quote]

Why don’t you stop beating around the bush and tell him how you really feel?

24

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Logically it’s not possible. I can argue freewill but not with the existence of foreknowledge. If I know you are going to go to the store and get strawberry ice cream, you simply could not do otherwise. My foreknowledge prevents you from doing that.
There are only a few ways to resolve the conflict.

  • Accept it’s a paradox and move on.
  • Take time out of the equation. Which makes sense to a point because choice is a metaphysical construct and metaphysical constructs do not exist in time, but we do. However, if you take time and stand it on it’s end, everything happens simultaneously. Perhaps God looks at it this way.
  • Or God could simply choose not to know. He decided to give us freewill, he can decide against having foreknowledge.

The third one actually solves the problem, but we simply don’t know. I not sure it’s knowable. God doesn’t give us much clue into internal workings of his mind.

The unmoved-mover was Aristotle’s concept, which is actually more interesting because he was scarcely aware of hebrews or monotheism. Kant took the ontological form and made a cosmological argument from the point of ontology (he would deny it). Hume was fabulous. He spent most of his time trying to debunk cosmology, while he failed at doing that, he did succeed in bringing a far greater and more detailed of causation than anybody before him.

P.S. Tirib, ^ this is how you make a counter arguement. Ironsmithy not only disagreed with me, but managed to make an actaul arguement and managed not to insult me at the same time…Learn from him[/quote]

Your knowledge of someone going to the store to get strawberry ice cream has nothing to do with them making the choice. They would do so regardless of whether you knew about it or not. Your knowledge is completely irrelevant.
[/quote]

If I had said foreknowledge, could you choose to do otherwise? If so, explain how?[/quote]

If you had foreknowledge, I wouldn’t choose otherwise.

If you lacked foreknowledge, I wouldn’t choose otherwise.

Hence, foreknowledge is irrelevant.

25

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< So you do believe that only your Calvinist Church is the Church which Christ’ built himself. You finally admit it.[/quote]I’m gonna have to ask God to help me take my own theology, His gospel, more seriously. You really don’t get this do you? I keep saying you won’t get it and then when you don’t I’m still bummed. There is no one true holy apostolic visible church. I am going to another large gathering of Christians tonight where people of all races and orthodox theological traditions will gather for the purpose of impacting the dying city of Detroit with the transforming power of the blood and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I will be up to my armpits in people I disagree with on quite a bit. When we pray together, just like every other time, I will see their soul.

Nobody ever prays, “Oh Lord I thank thee that thou hast blessed me with a glorious free will whereby I am enabled to thwart thine sincerest of efforts at saving me”. NO WAY!!! No truly regenerate born again human creature would EVER dare approach the throne of grace that way. God used the perfectly imperfect reformers to scrape the maggots of satanic man made tradition from continuing to feast upon the mystical body of Christ. Praise be to His infallible faithfulness.

And I am not yelling and I am not angry. The more you guys talk the heavier my heart and the greater the burden. No proof I can give for the 100th time will have any effect on people who have willingly surrendered their heart and mind to the great deceiver. You don’t need proof. You need life. Again I say, forsake this terrible empire of bondage and live.

26

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
<<< A long post >>>
[/quote]Except for a splendid cut n paste job very accurately and concisely spelling out the biblical doctrine of total depravity (quite good actually) you are spectacularly clueless once again. I mean as in 200 miles off the coast clueless. Your whole head is about to burst into flames from that light Pat and you continue to deny it’s there. The church you are now a part of has nothing whatever to do with the holy risen Christ or the apostle Peter for that matter. You’re like a Catholic pull string doll. You have zero understanding of the biblical gospel or God whatsoever. None.
[/quote]

I appreciated Pat’s post, because it put the lie to your claim that ALL men have free will, yet somehow mysteriously god chooses who to save and who to damn, contrary to everyone’s will. Calvin’s words are crystal clear: he believes fallen men have NO FREE WILL. Either you need to bone up on your Calvin, or you need to admit that you disagree with him.

27

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
There is no one true holy apostolic visible church.[/quote]

Show me where in the Bible this invisible one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

Side note: Maybe you should pick up the Catechism of the Catholic Church (you know the thing that tells you what Catholics are to believe) and read it (your lack of understanding of general knowledge of what I believe and what the Catholic Church believes is very revealing), heard from some Baptist protesters down in the South that it was very “Christocentric” for the whore of Babylon.

28

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
<<< A long post >>>
[/quote]Except for a splendid cut n paste job very accurately and concisely spelling out the biblical doctrine of total depravity (quite good actually) you are spectacularly clueless once again. I mean as in 200 miles off the coast clueless. Your whole head is about to burst into flames from that light Pat and you continue to deny it’s there. The church you are now a part of has nothing whatever to do with the holy risen Christ or the apostle Peter for that matter. You’re like a Catholic pull string doll. You have zero understanding of the biblical gospel or God whatsoever. None.
[/quote]

Oh, but I am not finished. But the only thing I cut and paste were fallacious statement by Calvin and some of the readings that debunk the absurdity of total depravity. You can call me all kinds of names, but you cannot back up what you say. I can not only make accurate statements but back them up with truth and scripture.
Keep name calling, but the fact that you cannot back up what you say with even bad theology is telling. Next up is the dismantling of divine election, I intend to take my time.

There is a difference between our faiths, every Catholic tenants is taken directly from scripture, not one of John Calvin’s is.
If they are you better start coming with the proof, because I have and will.

29

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< So you do believe that only your Calvinist Church is the Church which Christ’ built himself. You finally admit it.[/quote]I’m gonna have to ask God to help me take my own theology, His gospel, more seriously. You really don’t get this do you? I keep saying you won’t get it and then when you don’t I’m still bummed. There is no one true holy apostolic visible church. I am going to another large gathering of Christians tonight where people of all races and orthodox theological traditions will gather for the purpose of impacting the dying city of Detroit with the transforming power of the blood and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I will be up to my armpits in people I disagree with on quite a bit. When we pray together, just like every other time, I will see their soul.

Nobody ever prays, “Oh Lord I thank thee that thou hast blessed me with a glorious free will whereby I am enabled to thwart thine sincerest of efforts at saving me”. NO WAY!!! No truly regenerate born again human creature would EVER dare approach the throne of grace that way. God used the perfectly imperfect reformers to scrape the maggots of satanic man made tradition from continuing to feast upon the mystical body of Christ. Praise be to His infallible faithfulness.

And I am not yelling and I am not angry. The more you guys talk the heavier my heart and the greater the burden. No proof I can give for the 100th time will have any effect on people who have willingly surrendered their heart and mind to the great deceiver. You don’t need proof. You need life. Again I say, forsake this terrible empire of bondage and live.
[/quote]

OH! Its invisible! Christ invented the visible church! Do you realize how ridiculous you sound.
And no you haven’t brought forth a shred of proof, ever, so having some would in fact be refreshing. I think you don’t know why you believe what you believe, you just believe it.
Show me in the bible where this ‘invisible’ church exists.

30

Shooting from the cuff here but Calvin as a man probably wouldn’t agree with the philosophical structure labelled Calvinism today. TULIP or actually TULEP ( originally in dutch i think) wasn’t put forward until after his death by …117 yrs by Calvin’s followers. Also, I think there are varying levels of acceptance as well as the application of the entire body of work called “Calvinism”. SOo…to call someone a calvinist is absolutely relative to one’s own position. The term only obfuscates the truth of what we’re trying to discuss.

Bro. Chris…once again I’m not a papist but the original non-schismatic church was “catholic” lil “c” …gk for “one” church. It wasn’t until later on in the first century that we began to see the schisms appear. Papists say they are the remnant of the one true church. Greek and Russian orthodoxy does the same. Shoot …we have some" Baptist Briders" out there who have applied the catholic authority to the bapt. church and believe that a church doesn’t have scriptural authority to baptize or even exist unless it can trace its history back to Jerusalem. Kind of hard to do with those vikings burning down every monestary and library they could find.

Thanks for welcoming me into the discussion folks…I’m enjoying the read…I hope to be up to speed soon!!

31

[quote]IronSmithy wrote:
Shooting from the cuff here but Calvin as a man probably wouldn’t agree with the philosophical structure labelled Calvinism today. TULIP or actually TULEP ( originally in dutch i think) wasn’t put forward until after his death by …117 yrs by Calvin’s followers. Also, I think there are varying levels of acceptance as well as the application of the entire body of work called “Calvinism”. SOo…to call someone a calvinist is absolutely relative to one’s own position. The term only obfuscates the truth of what we’re trying to discuss.
[/quote]

Yes, but Tirib is a self proclaimed traditional Calvinist. With corporal punishment for penance by Church leaders (Calvin seemed to have no problem with having his Church leaders being visible) and all, except not.

Yes, 1st Century…Ignatius of Antioch friend of an Apostle, an Bishop himself, called it the Catholic Church, telling the faithful to stick close to their Bishop. Read the Church fathers, Tirib can stick to his 16th century authors, I prefer the Apostolic Fathers to St. John of Damascus (8th Century). I know what Catholic means. Yes I know what they say and they are considered to have valid Apostolic succession (Holy Orders) and sacraments, and Peter’s tomb is under the Vatican. It is not hard for the Catholic Church, or any of the Orthodox Churches, or even for some Anglican Churches.

[quote]
Thanks for welcoming me into the discussion folks…I’m enjoying the read…I hope to be up to speed soon!![/quote]

Anytime.

32

[quote]IronSmithy wrote:
Shooting from the cuff here but Calvin as a man probably wouldn’t agree with the philosophical structure labelled Calvinism today. TULIP or actually TULEP ( originally in dutch i think) wasn’t put forward until after his death by …117 yrs by Calvin’s followers. >>>[/quote]I don’t know how much Calvin you’ve read, but I promise you he would have wholeheartedly embraced the five points as codified by the Synod of Dort(1618 or 19) 50 years after his death to combat the rise of Arminianism. Calvin would also have pretty much endorsed the Westminster Standards which rose out of 4 years of the meticulous study and debate by dozens of men of God and were published in 1646. I don’t know you yet and I’m not jumping on you, but this debate happened the first time between Augustine and Pelagius way back in the 4th century. I’m onboard with Augustine as was Calvin.
Famous strong words:

[quote]“After the Holy Scriptures, I exhort the students to read the Commentaries of Calvin. . . . I tell them that he is incomparable in the interpretation of Scripture; and that his Commentaries ought to be held in greater estimation than all that is delivered to us in the writings of the ancient Christian Fathers: so that, in a certain eminent spirit of prophecy, I give the pre-eminence to him beyond most others, indeed beyond them all. I add, that, with regard to what belongs to common places, his Institutes must be read after the Catechism, as a more ample interpretation. But to all this I subjoin the remark, that they must be perused with cautious choice, like all other human compositions.”[/quote]Jacobus Arminius

33

[quote]IronSmithy wrote:
Shooting from the cuff here but Calvin as a man probably wouldn’t agree with the philosophical structure labelled Calvinism today. TULIP or actually TULEP ( originally in dutch i think) wasn’t put forward until after his death by …117 yrs by Calvin’s followers. Also, I think there are varying levels of acceptance as well as the application of the entire body of work called “Calvinism”. SOo…to call someone a calvinist is absolutely relative to one’s own position. The term only obfuscates the truth of what we’re trying to discuss.

Bro. Chris…once again I’m not a papist but the original non-schismatic church was “catholic” lil “c” …gk for “one” church. It wasn’t until later on in the first century that we began to see the schisms appear. Papists say they are the remnant of the one true church. Greek and Russian orthodoxy does the same. Shoot …we have some" Baptist Briders" out there who have applied the catholic authority to the bapt. church and believe that a church doesn’t have scriptural authority to baptize or even exist unless it can trace its history back to Jerusalem. Kind of hard to do with those vikings burning down every monestary and library they could find.

Thanks for welcoming me into the discussion folks…I’m enjoying the read…I hope to be up to speed soon!![/quote]

On Calvin, I am writing on each of the five tenets that he professed and you are welcome to put your two cents in. Note, if it is something you hold fast to, I am not meaning to be directly insulting, but I am meaning to be direct.

The orthodox branches are actually correct when they say they are part of the one true church. Though they do not recognize Papal authority, they held to the apostolic traditions and their roots can be traced directly to the apostles, just like us. Actually Catholics in absence of a catholic church can attend mass at orthodox churches and the Eucharist is still one in the same.

34

The fallacy of Unconditional Election:
Unconditional election states:
“God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely in His own sovereign will. His choice of particular sinners was not based on any foreseen response of obedience on their part, such as faith, repentance, etc. On the contrary, God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected. These acts are the result, not the cause of God’s choice. Election therefore was not determined by or conditioned upon any virtuous quality or act foreseen in man. Those whom God sovereignly elected He brings through the power of the Spirit to a willing acceptance of Christ. Thus God’s choice of the sinner, not the sinner’s choice of Christ, is the ultimate cause of salvation.”

This doctrine posits that God has chosen certain individuals out of the rest of the people to be unconditionally saved, through no effort or fault of their own. It also claims that repentance, charity, faith, good will and good works are a function of God’s election of those individuals and not by any choice of their own. It also regards the non-chosen to be damned to hell.
I am not sure there is enough space to accommodate what is wrong with the fallacious man made doctrine. But first and foremost it removes human accountability. No man predestined and with out free will is culpable for their actions. If one cannot control what they do, they are not responsible for it.
Second, it doles out punishment based merely on whim and election. God punishes because he elected you do suffer not because it was deserved. It also removes individual culpability for the saved, because no action of theirs will damn them and likewise for the damned no action of their will save them. If true, what’s the point of effort of service to God. You cannot change your fate, so why bother.
It makes God out to be a full blown jerk and urinates on the Gospel. Jesus came in to the world to save it, not condemn it. Chapter 3 of John alone complete invalidates this notion of election and predestination.
What if you are one of the elect, but you kids aren’t?
This fallacy would require a complete rewriting of the gospels for it to be true. Quite frankly, election invalidates the point of Jesus and his suffering for sinners. It makes his journey to the cross needless and pointless. He would have suffered and died for no reason.
Unconditional election is a abominable and self serving teaching that has no bases in truth or the bible. This is a man made tenet with no basis in truth or scripture.

Scriptures that absolutely annihilate this absurd concept:

  • John 3:* ← all of chapter 3
  • 2 Peter 3:9
  • Romans 10:9
  • Acts 13:48
  • John 12:46
  • Acts 10:34-35
  • Romans 10:11
  • 1 Timothy 2:3
  • John 1:29

That is to name just a few…
Unconditional election is the tenet of man and not God. Scripture denies it and so do I.

35

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Logically it’s not possible. I can argue freewill but not with the existence of foreknowledge. If I know you are going to go to the store and get strawberry ice cream, you simply could not do otherwise. My foreknowledge prevents you from doing that.
There are only a few ways to resolve the conflict.

  • Accept it’s a paradox and move on.
  • Take time out of the equation. Which makes sense to a point because choice is a metaphysical construct and metaphysical constructs do not exist in time, but we do. However, if you take time and stand it on it’s end, everything happens simultaneously. Perhaps God looks at it this way.
  • Or God could simply choose not to know. He decided to give us freewill, he can decide against having foreknowledge.

The third one actually solves the problem, but we simply don’t know. I not sure it’s knowable. God doesn’t give us much clue into internal workings of his mind.

The unmoved-mover was Aristotle’s concept, which is actually more interesting because he was scarcely aware of hebrews or monotheism. Kant took the ontological form and made a cosmological argument from the point of ontology (he would deny it). Hume was fabulous. He spent most of his time trying to debunk cosmology, while he failed at doing that, he did succeed in bringing a far greater and more detailed of causation than anybody before him.

P.S. Tirib, ^ this is how you make a counter arguement. Ironsmithy not only disagreed with me, but managed to make an actaul arguement and managed not to insult me at the same time…Learn from him[/quote]

Your knowledge of someone going to the store to get strawberry ice cream has nothing to do with them making the choice. They would do so regardless of whether you knew about it or not. Your knowledge is completely irrelevant.
[/quote]

If I had said foreknowledge, could you choose to do otherwise? If so, explain how?[/quote]

If you had foreknowledge, I wouldn’t choose otherwise.

If you lacked foreknowledge, I wouldn’t choose otherwise.

Hence, foreknowledge is irrelevant.
[/quote]

Not correct, foreknowledge constricts freewill. If I knew everything you would ever do in life before you did it or knew about it, you could not break the bonds.

If you had foreknowledge, you could not choose otherwise. If I lacked it, you could…Whether you would is not relevant, it’s could that matters.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

36

[quote]forlife wrote:
Ragging on Ryuu for his age is no better than him ragging on you for your intelligence.

Keep the ad hominems out of it.[/quote]

Like anyone on this site respects what you have to say about religion? No really come on…

37

[quote]pat wrote:
The fallacy of Unconditional Election:
Unconditional election states:
“God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely in His own sovereign will. His choice of particular sinners was not based on any foreseen response of obedience on their part, such as faith, repentance, etc. On the contrary, God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected. These acts are the result, not the cause of God’s choice. Election therefore was not determined by or conditioned upon any virtuous quality or act foreseen in man. Those whom God sovereignly elected He brings through the power of the Spirit to a willing acceptance of Christ. Thus God’s choice of the sinner, not the sinner’s choice of Christ, is the ultimate cause of salvation.”

This doctrine posits that God has chosen certain individuals out of the rest of the people to be unconditionally saved, through no effort or fault of their own. It also claims that repentance, charity, faith, good will and good works are a function of God’s election of those individuals and not by any choice of their own. It also regards the non-chosen to be damned to hell.
I am not sure there is enough space to accommodate what is wrong with the fallacious man made doctrine. But first and foremost it removes human accountability. No man predestined and with out free will is culpable for their actions. If one cannot control what they do, they are not responsible for it.
Second, it doles out punishment based merely on whim and election. God punishes because he elected you do suffer not because it was deserved. It also removes individual culpability for the saved, because no action of theirs will damn them and likewise for the damned no action of their will save them. If true, what’s the point of effort of service to God. You cannot change your fate, so why bother.
It makes God out to be a full blown jerk and urinates on the Gospel. Jesus came in to the world to save it, not condemn it. Chapter 3 of John alone complete invalidates this notion of election and predestination.
What if you are one of the elect, but you kids aren’t?
This fallacy would require a complete rewriting of the gospels for it to be true. Quite frankly, election invalidates the point of Jesus and his suffering for sinners. It makes his journey to the cross needless and pointless. He would have suffered and died for no reason.
Unconditional election is a abominable and self serving teaching that has no bases in truth or the bible. This is a man made tenet with no basis in truth or scripture.

Scriptures that absolutely annihilate this absurd concept:

  • John 3:* ← all of chapter 3
  • 2 Peter 3:9
  • Romans 10:9
  • Acts 13:48
  • John 12:46
  • Acts 10:34-35
  • Romans 10:11
  • 1 Timothy 2:3
  • John 1:29

That is to name just a few…
Unconditional election is the tenet of man and not God. Scripture denies it and so do I.
[/quote]

I agree. Obviously the Bible talks about the “elect” but I believe the elect refers to the condition of the saved, not specific individuals. Specifically, God preordained that the saved will be those who believe in Christ and obey his commands, but God didn’t preordain specific individual’s to be saved, just the condition.

38

[quote]pat wrote:
The fallacy of Unconditional Election:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[/quote]I’m just about done with this. I’ve got other things to do. I haven’t heard a new argument against the Godhood of God in over 20 years. Myopically focusing on the nationalistic element of actually the whole book of Romans tragically misses the point, which IS the infallible sovereignty of almighty God, but I have feeling that’s what’s coming.

Romans 9-10:4 ESV

[quote]I am speaking the truth in Christ, I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25 As indeed he says in Hosea,

“Those who were not my people I will call my people,
and her who was not beloved I will call beloved.”
26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, You are not my people,
there they will be called sons of the living God.”

27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel [3] be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, 28 for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.” 29 And as Isaiah predicted,

“If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring,
we would have been like Sodom
and become like Gomorrah.”
Israel’s Unbelief

30 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness [4] did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written,

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense;
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

10:1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. >>>[/quote]

39

[quote]pat wrote:

The unmoved-mover[/quote]

40

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Logically it’s not possible. I can argue freewill but not with the existence of foreknowledge. If I know you are going to go to the store and get strawberry ice cream, you simply could not do otherwise. My foreknowledge prevents you from doing that.
There are only a few ways to resolve the conflict.

  • Accept it’s a paradox and move on.
  • Take time out of the equation. Which makes sense to a point because choice is a metaphysical construct and metaphysical constructs do not exist in time, but we do. However, if you take time and stand it on it’s end, everything happens simultaneously. Perhaps God looks at it this way.
  • Or God could simply choose not to know. He decided to give us freewill, he can decide against having foreknowledge.

The third one actually solves the problem, but we simply don’t know. I not sure it’s knowable. God doesn’t give us much clue into internal workings of his mind.

The unmoved-mover was Aristotle’s concept, which is actually more interesting because he was scarcely aware of hebrews or monotheism. Kant took the ontological form and made a cosmological argument from the point of ontology (he would deny it). Hume was fabulous. He spent most of his time trying to debunk cosmology, while he failed at doing that, he did succeed in bringing a far greater and more detailed of causation than anybody before him.

P.S. Tirib, ^ this is how you make a counter arguement. Ironsmithy not only disagreed with me, but managed to make an actaul arguement and managed not to insult me at the same time…Learn from him[/quote]

Your knowledge of someone going to the store to get strawberry ice cream has nothing to do with them making the choice. They would do so regardless of whether you knew about it or not. Your knowledge is completely irrelevant.
[/quote]

If I had said foreknowledge, could you choose to do otherwise? If so, explain how?[/quote]

If you had foreknowledge, I wouldn’t choose otherwise.

If you lacked foreknowledge, I wouldn’t choose otherwise.

Hence, foreknowledge is irrelevant.
[/quote]

Not correct, foreknowledge constricts freewill. If I knew everything you would ever do in life before you did it or knew about it, you could not break the bonds.

If you had foreknowledge, you could not choose otherwise. If I lacked it, you could…Whether you would is not relevant, it’s could that matters.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

[/quote]

Your foreknowledge, or the lack of it, has nothing whatsoever to do with what I could or couldn’t do. Knowing that I’m going to make a certain choice doesn’t mean I wasn’t free to make that choice. I was perfectly free to make it, you just knew me so well that you understood what choice I would make. Step back for a second and think about it logically. How in the world could your foreknowledge impact my choice? It’s impossible.

If I’m omniscient, and I know for a fact that the sun will rise tomorrow, does my knowledge influence the rising of the sun? Obviously not. I simply know the sun is going to rise. Whether I know it or not, it is a fact that the sun will rise.

Don’t confuse omniscience with predestination. Knowing all things doesn’t imply responsibility for all things.