Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One on One: Z Man & Knight

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • One on One: Z Man & Knight

    On another thread Z Man has rightfully accused me of not responding to some of the points he was making. My response is, that there were more pressing issues on the table at the time.

    However, I would like to give Z Man the opportunity to make his point and get a response from me. If I am not mistaken Z Man was making a point about certain scriptures showing that God exhaustively knew the future or that God was outside of time etc.

    Now Z Man I do have one requirement of this One on One thread and that is that we take things in bite size chunks. I am busy, and I am sure you are busy as well so please don't post 25 verses that you would like me to address when instead we can take them one or two at a time. Fair enough?

    So, when time permits please post the first verse or two or point that you think demonstrates my position is wrong or that yours is correct etc.

    Thanks in advance for your time.
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  • #2
    Originally posted by Knight
    However, I would like to give Z Man the opportunity to make his point and get a response from me. If I am not mistaken Z Man was making a point about certain scriptures showing that God exhaustively knew the future or that God was outside of time etc.
    Actually, it was mostly about God being sovereign, and we being responsible at the same time. His foreknowledge is part of His diety/sovereignty.
    Now Z Man I do have one requirement of this One on One thread and that is that we take things in bite size chunks. I am busy, and I am sure you are busy as well so please don't post 25 verses that you would like me to address when instead we can take them one or two at a time. Fair enough?
    Fair enough.

    So here goes...



    It all started in the thread 'Does God Know the Future'. After telling Knight that "Just because God ordains doesn't mean you are eliviated from responsibility", he asks, "Why; How can I be responsible for something I have no control over?" ( Post #405 ). I responded ( Post #424 ) with 3 Scriptural references that prove God is sovereign, and yet, we are still held accountable. But, as Knight has so graciously asked, I will only post one reference at a time.


    - In reponse to Knight's question: "How can I be responsible for something I have no control over?"


    Case # 1

    In Luke 22:31-34 Jesus not only predicts that Peter will deny him three times that very night, but treats the act with such certainty that he is already praying for Peter's future repentance and future ministry.


    Luke 22:31-34
    "'Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.' But he said to Him, 'Lord, with You I am ready to go both to prison and to death!' And He said, 'I say to you, Peter, the rooster will not crow today until you have denied three times that you know Me.'"



    This absolute knowledge that Peter would sin, how often he would sin, when he would sin, and that he would repent does not remove Peter's moral responsibility in the least, which is made plain by the fact that Peter weeps bitterly precisely when he remembers the words of Jesus' prediction. Peter does not say, "Well, you predicted this sin, and so it had to take place, and so it can't have been part of my free willing, and so I am not responsible for it." He wept bitterly. He was guilty and he knew it.

    Jesus was glorious in the prediction, and Peter was guilty. Why do all four gospels tell this remarkable prediction in detail? Surely the deepest answer is the one given by John 13:19, "I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am." His foreknowledge of "all the things that were coming upon him" was an essential aspect of his glory as the incarnate Word, the Son of God. The denial of this foreknowledge is an assault on the deity of Christ.
    Question what you believe in, and then you'll know.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Z Man
      Actually, it was mostly about God being sovereign, and we being responsible at the same time.
      In an effort of clarity no open theist denies God's sovereignity. God is sovereign, even sovereign of His own sovereignity

      Case # 1

      In Luke 22:31-34 Jesus not only predicts that Peter will deny him three times that very night, but treats the act with such certainty that he is already praying for Peter's future repentance and future ministry.
      Z Man, you need to think long and hard about the question I am about to ask you regarding your case #1. This question I am about to ask holds in it the very key to God's foreknowledge as used in the Bible. It may take us some time and several responses and follow-up responses but I believe in the end your case #1 will become an absolute nightmare for your position that man does not have freewill.

      Why did God bother to interact with Peter and give Him a prediction about how Peter would respond when asked if he would deny Christ?

      That question is a mouthful!

      Here is the question again asked another way . . .

      What did God have to gain by telling Peter he would deny Christ?
      Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
      TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Knight
        In an effort of clarity no open theist denies God's sovereignity. God is sovereign, even sovereign of His own sovereignity

        Z Man, you need to think long and hard about the question I am about to ask you regarding your case #1. This question I am about to ask holds in it the very key to God's foreknowledge as used in the Bible. It may take us some time and several responses and follow-up responses but I believe in the end your case #1 will become an absolute nightmare for your position that man does not have freewill.

        Why did God bother to interact with Peter and give Him a prediction about how Peter would respond when asked if he would deny Christ?

        That question is a mouthful!

        Here is the question again asked another way . . .

        What did God have to gain by telling Peter he would deny Christ?
        Now see, this is exactly what I feared about debating with you. This is not the direction that I had in mind when posting what I did. It's like you stole my verse and are now starting a totally different topic. The topic at hand that we are discussing is the reconciliation of God's absolute sovereignty and our responsibility. Can they co-exist? What proof does the Bible give for what seems like a contradiction? I wanted to answer your question, "How can I be responsible for something I have no control over"? But now you're venturing down a different road. In my opinion, it looks to me like you want to steer the topic away from discovering the answer to your own question. You want to steer it your way, so you can call the shots and force me into a corner to submit to your views.

        Of course, this could all be in my head, and I can be going psycho, but I'm just calling it like I see it.

        Even though I don't like how you handled answering my first post, I will still answer your question. The fact is, the answer was in my first post to begin with! Either you didn't read the whole post, or you must've missed it. Here's the answer to your question:

        Knight asks: What did God have to gain by telling Peter he would deny Christ?

        My answer (which is from my first post - please note the underlined part): Jesus was glorious in the prediction, and Peter was guilty. Why do all four gospels tell this remarkable prediction in detail? Surely the deepest answer is the one given by John 13:19, "I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am." His foreknowledge of "all the things that were coming upon him" was an essential aspect of his glory as the incarnate Word, the Son of God. The denial of this foreknowledge is an assault on the deity of Christ.
        Question what you believe in, and then you'll know.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Z Man
          Now see, this is exactly what I feared about debating with you. This is not the direction that I had in mind when posting what I did. It's like you stole my verse and are now starting a totally different topic.
          Z Man, with all due respect are you on crack?

          I mean really?

          You are asking me to respond to a Bible story that you think provides proof for your point, I am responding to your assertion directly! How on earth could you possibly accuse me of changing the topic?

          Nevermind, don't answer it will only sidetrack the topic even further.

          The topic at hand that we are discussing is the reconciliation of God's absolute sovereignty and our responsibility. Can they co-exist? What proof does the Bible give for what seems like a contradiction? I wanted to answer your question, "How can I be responsible for something I have no control over"? But now you're venturing down a different road. In my opinion, it looks to me like you want to steer the topic away from discovering the answer to your own question. You want to steer it your way, so you can call the shots and force me into a corner to submit to your views.
          I had no idea you thought this thread would be limited to what you described above.

          My answer (which is from my first post - please note the underlined part): Jesus was glorious in the prediction, and Peter was guilty. Why do all four gospels tell this remarkable prediction in detail? Surely the deepest answer is the one given by John 13:19, "I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am." His foreknowledge of "all the things that were coming upon him" was an essential aspect of his glory as the incarnate Word, the Son of God. The denial of this foreknowledge is an assault on the deity of Christ.
          Excellent answer! Brilliant I tell you!!! And to be honest, I couldn't have answered it any better myself!

          Let me see if you agree with the following statement in light of your answer above but applied directly to Peter and Jesus . . .

          God dispensed a bit of foreknowledge to Peter so that when the prediction came to pass Peter would have renewed faith that Jesus was who He said He was.

          Do you have any disagreement with that whatsoever?
          Last edited by Knight; June 27th, 2005, 10:01 PM.
          Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
          TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Knight
            God dispensed a bit of foreknowledge to Peter so that when the prediction came to pass Peter would have renewed faith that Jesus was who He said He was.

            Do you have any disagreement with that whatsoever?
            No.

            But getting back to your question, this story shows that God told Peter he would deny Him, and yet, Peter was still responsible. He was guilty for his sin, although God forknew it and even told Peter it was going to happen. God ordained, and Peter was responsible. It is possible, just like the Bible says.

            Ready to move on to Case # 2?
            Question what you believe in, and then you'll know.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Z Man
              No.

              But getting back to your question, this story shows that God told Peter he would deny Him, and yet, Peter was still responsible. He was guilty for his sin, although God forknew it and even told Peter it was going to happen. God ordained, and Peter was responsible. It is possible, just like the Bible says.

              Ready to move on to Case # 2?
              Z Man, am I disagreeing that God had foreknowledge that Peter would deny Christ?

              No! In fact, just the opposite.

              Having foreknowledge of and event is VERY different from orchestrating every aspect of an event beforehand. The truth is you DO NOT BELIEVE that God had only foreknowledge of Peters denial but also that God ordained every detail of Peters denial. This is a monumental distinction, so before we go any further I would like you to affirm your belief regarding Peter's denial.

              On another thread you wrote . . .
              It's not about us; it's all about God. He's doing as He sees fit to bring about whatever it is He so desires. Freewill is simply something humans make up to make themselves feel like they are in control. But, in all reality, it doesn't exist. You have no control over your life whatsoever. You cannot stop sinning, you cannot stop working, you cannot stop eating, you cannot even stop death. You have NO CONTROL. You make choices because you HAVE to, not because you're 'free' to make them.
              (Bold emphasis mine)

              Therefore, according to you Peter had NO CONTROL WHATSOEVER, he didn't choose to deny Christ and then later be amazed that God was correct about his denial, yet instead you believe Peter was ordained to deny Christ and ordained to react the way he reacted.

              This is the monumental distinction that we must put out on the table before we go any further.

              Therefore . . .
              Do you stand by your assertion that Peter had no control whatsoever in his denial of Christ?
              Last edited by Knight; June 28th, 2005, 12:17 PM.
              Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
              TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Knight
                Therefore . . .
                Do you stand by your assertion that Peter had no control whatsoever in his denial of Christ?
                Of course I do! Jesus told him it was going to happen. Do you think Peter could of proved Jesus wrong?

                Earlier in one of your posts, you said:
                Originally posted by Knight
                [God] is God and no one can stop Him, He can bring an event to pass. If He determines that the rapture will happen on June 8th 2025 at 3PM who is gonna stop Him?
                In the same manner, God is God, and had determined that at that specific time, when the rooster crowed, that Peter was going to deny him. Peter couldn't stop it from happening. God predetermined all of this so that when it did happen, Peter would realize that Jesus was truly who He said He was. In other words, God predestined this for His glory. He didn't take into consideration Peter's 'feelings' or the fact that Peter would sin. God's concern was more for His glory. And yet, Peter still benefited from all of this, because God knew that this incident, although it was a sin, would help Peter to grow in his faith, and at the same time, give glory to Himself.

                It proves without a shadow of a doubt that God predestines/ordains our actions, and we are still responsible for them. God is all wise, and knows exactly how to display His glory through any incident, whether it be from a person's sin, or suffering, to another person's sucess and blessings. In all things, He is glorified!

                If you want more proof of the Bible teaching the reconciliation of God's ordination and our responsibility, then let's move on to case # 2. Or, we can continue to discuss this passage, if you so desire. You may have more questions. Your call.
                Question what you believe in, and then you'll know.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Z Man
                  God predetermined all of this so that when it did happen, Peter would realize that Jesus was truly who He said He was.
                  So Peter would realize?

                  Did you just type..... God predicted Peter's future so that Peter would realize????

                  You have already affirmed that Peter had NO CONTROL WHATSOEVER over his life and actions.

                  The above contradiction in your belief system clearly demonstrates that you inherently believe Peter has freewill and that Peters freewill played a part in God's interacting with Peter (God wanted to get a reaction from Peter). Even you cannot escape the necessity of freewill in your "case #1".

                  You continue . . .
                  And yet, Peter still benefited from all of this, because God knew that this incident, although it was a sin, would help Peter to grow in his faith, and at the same time, give glory to Himself.
                  How could Peter benefit and grow in his faith if Peter has NO CONTROL OF HIS LIFE WHATSOEVER?

                  Here is the rub in all of this . . .

                  I agree with you that God dispenses foreknowledge so that when the foreknowledge comes to pass those involved will be able to say . . . "Hey that happened just as predicted, God must really be who He said He was!"

                  Yet this very notion relies on the fact that those involved have the ability to be convinced by God that He is who He says He is. If people have NO CONTROL WHATSOEVER over their lives then they also have no control to be convinced and come to the realization that God is God and He is who He says He is.

                  So my question(s) are . . .

                  1. Why would God attempt to influence Peter and have Peter benefit and grow in his faith if Peter had NO CONTROL OF HIS LIFE WHATSOEVER?
                  2. Do people have enough control over their own lives to be persuaded by God's predicting of future events?
                  Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                  TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    First of all, I have to say that you are extremely frustrating to debate with. In my opinion, you do not stay on topic, and you look for minor, insignificant words or fallacies in a post to harp on just to steer clear of the main topic at hand. For example:
                    Originally posted by Knight
                    So Peter would realize?

                    Did you just type..... God predicted Peter's future so that Peter would realize????

                    You have already affirmed that Peter had NO CONTROL WHATSOEVER over his life and actions.

                    The above contradiction in your belief system clearly demonstrates that you inherently believe Peter has freewill and that Peters freewill played a part in God's interacting with Peter (God wanted to get a reaction from Peter). Even you cannot escape the necessity of freewill in your "case #1".
                    What?!?!? I mean, really Knight. This is stretching it by a looooong shot! How you can take the word 'realize' way out of context, and declare that suddenly I have contridicted my belief system to where I now believe in freewill, is ridiculous. I have to admit though, it must take some sort of skill to be able to do this. However, I wish you'd refrain from doing it in a debate between us. It's distracting and frustrating to deal with in context of the rest of this thread.

                    I don't even know where to start with the above quote. Realize = Freewill??? Please... Give me a break...
                    How could Peter benefit and grow in his faith if Peter has NO CONTROL OF HIS LIFE WHATSOEVER?
                    By the mercies and grace of God. It's God who works in us to produce what He wants. I never implied that Peter 'upkept' and 'maintained' his faith on his own. That's impossible! The Bible tells us:


                    Hebrews 13:20-21
                    Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you complete in every good work to do His will, working in you what is well pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

                    Hebrews 12:2
                    ...looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

                    Romans 12:3
                    For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith.
                    Here is the rub in all of this . . .

                    I agree with you that God dispenses foreknowledge so that when the foreknowledge comes to pass those involved will be able to say . . . "Hey that happened just as predicted, God must really be who He said He was!"
                    Great!
                    Yet this very notion relies on the fact that those involved have the ability to be convinced by God that He is who He says He is.
                    But of course! I couldn't agree more! God is the ONLY one who can 'convince' people of His reality. I've said that ever since I've been on this website.
                    If people have NO CONTROL WHATSOEVER over their lives then they also have no control to be convinced and come to the realization that God is God and He is who He says He is.
                    When you say, "they have no control to be convinced", what exactly does that mean???

                    There is something that doesn't add up here. From this, I gather your logic to read as follows:

                    A) People have no control of their lives whatsoever
                    B) Therefore, they cannot be convinced
                    C) Thus, God cannot convince them

                    B is wrong, so it leads to a false conclusion of C. Even if B was right, how can it be concluded that God cannot convince people?

                    It should read more like this:

                    A) People have no control of their lives whatsoever
                    B) Therefore, they cannot convince themselves to choose God
                    C) Thus, only God can 'convince' us of His reality

                    A follows because of sin. Total depravity as seen through numerous Scripture support, suggests that man cannot freely decide to do good, or to please God. They are controled by sin, and are enslaved by it, doing only that which seeks to please their corrupted souls. Thus, B logically follows, which states that people cannot believe in God of their own will. Their will does everying in it's power to reject God. The conclusion then, in C, means that only God can open our eyes to His truth and save us from our corrupted, sinful wills. He frees us from the bondage of sin, so that we can choose to follow in His ways. That's what freedom is all about.

                    * Please note * Now I know I used words such as 'choose', and 'freedom' in the above passage, but please do not take them and run with them, as you have with the word 'realize', and suggest that I believe in freewill. I only used those words for their simplicity in understanding what I'm talking about.
                    So my question(s) are . . .

                    1. Why would God attempt to influence Peter and have Peter benefit and grow in his faith if Peter had NO CONTROL OF HIS LIFE WHATSOEVER?
                    1. Simple. Because God is the only one who can influence Peter to grow in his faith, since Peter has no control whatsoever.
                    2. Do people have enough control over their own lives to be persuaded by God's predicting of future events?
                  • The question isn't 'do people have enough control', but does God have enough power! To which the answer is an anstounding YES! He's the only way capable of pursuading us to see it His way.


                    Now please, can we please get back to your original question. You asked, "How can I be responsible for something I have no control over?" Do you not see your answer in the passage about Peter? Can you at least admit that in this passage you can see that Peter had no control over his denying Christ, and yet, he was still responsible?
                  Question what you believe in, and then you'll know.

                  Comment


                  • #11
                    Originally posted by Z Man
                    * Please note * Now I know I used words such as 'choose', and 'freedom' in the above passage, but please do not take them and run with them, as you have with the word 'realize', and suggest that I believe in freewill. I only used those words for their simplicity in understanding what I'm talking about.
                    You use words that mean what you really believe, everyone does! And the people that use words that mean other than what they think they mean are referred to as psychotic.

                    Why else would you use those words? Maybe because those are the words that describe what you think? I can't imagine being in the position that I had to use words and then explain why I used them as if I were embarrassed by their meanings.

                    Originally posted by Z Man
                    Now please, can we please get back to your original question. You asked, "How can I be responsible for something I have no control over?" Do you not see your answer in the passage about Peter? Can you at least admit that in this passage you can see that Peter had no control over his denying Christ, and yet, he was still responsible?
                    Z Man, I couldn't have asked for a better way to start this thread.

                    Feel free to go to your Case #2.
                    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                    Comment


                    • #12
                      It all started in the thread 'Does God Know the Future'. After telling Knight that "Just because God ordains doesn't mean you are eliviated from responsibility", he asks, "Why; How can I be responsible for something I have no control over?" ( Post #405 ). I responded ( Post #424 ) with 3 Scriptural references that prove God is sovereign, and yet, we are still held accountable. But, as Knight has so graciously asked, I will only post one reference at a time.


                      - In reponse to Knight's question: "How can I be responsible for something I have no control over?"


                      Case # 2

                      Genesis 20:1-6
                      And Abraham journeyed from there to the South, and dwelt between Kadesh and Shur, and stayed in Gerar. Now Abraham said of Sarah his wife, "She is my sister." And Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah.

                      But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, "Indeed you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man's wife." But Abimelech had not come near her; and he said, "Lord, will You slay a righteous nation also? Did he not say to me, 'She is my sister'? And she, even she herself said, 'He is my brother.' In the integrity of my heart and innocence of my hands I have done this." And God said to him in a dream, "Yes, I know that you did this in the integrity of your heart. For I also withheld you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her."




                      God said that the reason Abimelech did not sin against Him was because God did not allow Abimelech to touch Sarah, and yet at the same time, it was Abimelech's integrity and innocence that forbade him to touch Sarah. He was still responsible for his actions although they were ordained by God.

                      This passage couldn't be an any clearer representation of the verse found in Proverbs:

                      Proverbs 16:9
                      A man's heart plans his way, But the Lord directs his steps.
                      Question what you believe in, and then you'll know.

                      Comment


                      • #13
                        Z Man, I have read your post. I will respond to it tonight when I get back home.
                        Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                        TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                        Comment


                        • #14
                          Originally posted by Z Man
                          Case # 2

                          Genesis 20:1-6
                          And Abraham journeyed from there to the South, and dwelt between Kadesh and Shur, and stayed in Gerar. Now Abraham said of Sarah his wife, "She is my sister." And Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah.

                          But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, "Indeed you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man's wife." But Abimelech had not come near her; and he said, "Lord, will You slay a righteous nation also? Did he not say to me, 'She is my sister'? And she, even she herself said, 'He is my brother.' In the integrity of my heart and innocence of my hands I have done this." And God said to him in a dream, "Yes, I know that you did this in the integrity of your heart. For I also withheld you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her."




                          God said that the reason Abimelech did not sin against Him was because God did not allow Abimelech to touch Sarah, and yet at the same time, it was Abimelech's integrity and innocence that forbade him to touch Sarah. He was still responsible for his actions although they were ordained by God.
                          Ya know . . . I am really trying . . . I am really trying to see how you think this verse helps your case but I just don't see it.

                          Z Man, where does it say that God ordained Abimelech to not touch Sara a millennia beforehand?


                          It doesn't does it?

                          God protected Sarah by not allowing Abimelech to touch her, so what? Do you see how your theology causes you to jump to a conclusion that isn't there? No Open Theist or Arminian thinks that freewill isn't ever influenced or manipulated by God at times. I might not allow my son to take the car, yet that certainly doesn't mean I have ordained his actions in advance, my sons freewill is still in tact yet limited to not taking the car.

                          This story in Genesis makes far more sense when taken at face value without putting a Calvinist spin on it.

                          God interacted with the will of Abimelech to protect one of His people. That is the story In a nutshell! The story is far more logical, far more understandable without adding any preconceived ideas that simply aren't in the story.

                          You continue . . .
                          This passage couldn't be an any clearer representation of the verse found in Proverbs:

                          Proverbs 16:9
                          A man's heart plans his way, But the Lord directs his steps.
                          Z Man, why would you use a verse that states . . . "A man's heart plans his way" ? What happened to your assertion . . .
                          It's not about us; it's all about God. He's doing as He sees fit to bring about whatever it is He so desires. Freewill is simply something humans make up to make themselves feel like they are in control. But, in all reality, it doesn't exist. You have no control over your life whatsoever. You cannot stop sinning, you cannot stop working, you cannot stop eating, you cannot even stop death. You have NO CONTROL. You make choices because you HAVE to, not because you're 'free' to make them.
                          Z Man how can a man's heart plan his way if he has no control whatsoever?
                          Last edited by Knight; June 29th, 2005, 10:53 PM.
                          Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                          TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                          Comment


                          • #15
                            Originally posted by Knight
                            Ya know . . . I am really trying . . . I am really trying to see how you think this verse helps your case but I just don't see it.

                            Z Man, where does it say that God ordained Abimelech to not touch Sara a millennia beforehand?


                            It doesn't does it?
                            That wasn't my point.

                            You asked: "How can I be responsible for something I have no control over?" This passage in Genesis may not answer your question directly, but it is meant to show you an example of God ordaining, or controlling Abimelech's actions, and yet at the same time, God said He knew that Abimelech's integrity kept him from touching Sarah. Your question is asked in a way that seems to approve of the notion that if God is in complete control, and we have none, then we cannot be responsible. Posting these Scriptures is meant to show you Scriptural proof of the very thing you questioned; what it is you seem to not believe:

                            God is in control - He controls and ordains our actions - and yet, at the same time, we are still responsible.

                            These Scripture passages prove it. That's the only point I was making, so that you could see the error in believing that if God is in complete control, we cannot be responsible.
                            God protected Sarah by not allowing Abimelech to touch her, so what?
                            Actually, God protected Abimelech by not allowing him to touch Sarah! And yet, it was Abimelech's integrity that saved him from God's wrath. God's control and our responsibility work hand in hand. You cannot deny the Scriptures. As a Bible believing Christian, you MUST agree.
                            Do you see how your theology causes you to jump to a conclusion that isn't there?
                            I wasn't 'jumping' to any conclusions. Just simply making a point that God is in control, and we are still responsible, like it or not.
                            No Open Theist or Arminian thinks that freewill isn't ever influenced or manipulated by God at times.
                            A manipulated, influenced, or limited will is not free.
                            I might not allow my son to take the car, yet that certainly doesn't mean I have ordained his actions in advance, my sons freewill is still in tact yet limited to not taking the car.
                            Horrible analogy. How does that even relate to our relationship with God???

                            Don't bother answering. It will just sidetrack us.
                            This story in Genesis makes far more sense when taken at face value without putting a Calvinist spin on it.

                            God interacted with the will of Abimelech to protect one of His people. That is the story In a nutshell! The story is far more logical, far more understandable without adding any preconceived ideas that simply aren't in the story.
                            Surely, you can't believe that. You believe in freewill, remember? Who is God to 'interact', or influence the will of Abimelech? That's not love, so you OV'ers say.
                            Z Man, why would you use a verse that states . . . "A man's heart plans his way" ?

                            Z Man how can a man's heart plan his way if he has no control whatsoever?
                            [/b]
                            Just because a person has no 'freewill' doesn't mean he can't think, or plan, or have ideas. You falsely assume that when I say 'no control whatsoever' that it means a person is a complete vegetable. That's not the case, and I never implied that! It simply means that a person cannot control their fate. It may look like we make 'choices' on a daily basis, but it's all according to God's perfect plan. We plan to do things in our heart, but what is done is exactly what God had directed. We plan our ways, He directs our steps.

                            Here's another great verse:

                            Proverbs 19:21
                            There are many plans in a man's heart, nevertheless the Lord's counsel--that will stand.

                            You can think of any idea or plan that you wish, but the Lord's counsel, or His plan of action will stand. In other words, He always gets His way. Sometimes our plans come through, but it's not because of 'freewill' that God decided to let you have it 'your way' - it's because your plans and His ways were in unity. Sometimes our plans fall through, and that's because it wasn't what God had intended. It's that simple.
                            Question what you believe in, and then you'll know.

                            Comment

                            • Working...
                              X