C
Cap
Guest
I am saying both of these are true but based on ones point of view.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Polygyny and Male Attraction
- Thread starter Eristhophanes
- Start date
I am saying both of these are true but based on ones point of view.
C
Cap
Guest
If ananias and sapphira had chosen not to lie, there would have been no story to tell. Them lying served God's purpose. I believe God does not live in a world of cause and effect, but one of proaction. He creates things that fail for a purpose. We see them as choices we can make but in reality any choice we make God has an answer for.
@Verifyveritas76, I know you will understand this, if you want to pour a foundation for the concrete slab of a house you build an encasement. Once the concrete is poured and cured, you destroy the encasement. Was the encasement wrong?
I’m not sure that’s a good comparison. I think I understand what you’re trying to say, but I’m not sure you’ve thought it out to its logical conclusion.
Seems like that perspective would lead to a sinner claiming no culpability for their sin, and thus attribute unrighteousness to God when He punishes them for the sin. OTOH, Free will and the resulting sin or reward for our choices leaves God unblameable when He punishes or rewards.
Seems like that perspective would lead to a sinner claiming no culpability for their sin, and thus attribute unrighteousness to God when He punishes them for the sin. OTOH, Free will and the resulting sin or reward for our choices leaves God unblameable when He punishes or rewards.
C
Cap
Guest
@Verifyveritas76 and @steve , I know that what I am saying does not fit the normal perception of how we live our lives as humans. And no, we are held responsible for the sins we create, we have the will to do whatever we want and whatever that is God has predestined a response that is not reactive.
The Bible is a story line of the coming of the Son of God, the family members and all their failures leads up to that reality. Could at any point anyone of them not done something that would lead to sin? Yes. But then how could that story come to its conclusion. Therefore, those who sinned but yet the story continued on must have been taken into consideration. History is on a schedule and, I believe, God has already created that schedule from beginning to end and we only witness the pieces we are allowed to see, but that doesn't change the fact that whatever He has predestined is not going to come true.
Physical reality and quantum reality are two different things but explain the same thing on different levels. The table in front of you is there as far as you know, however it is also not there on a different level. Which is wrong, or is one not real?
Exodus 9:12 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses
Exodus 12:29 At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well.
Romans 9:22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction?
The encasement for the foundation is only a vessel meant for destruction, as we all are, however there is resurrection. Every free will choice we make leads to only one conclusion, either God is King of our lives or He is not in our lives, but that does not change the fact that He is no matter what we think. Just because someone says, by their own free will, that God does not exist does not make it so. So what free will do they really have?
The Bible is a story line of the coming of the Son of God, the family members and all their failures leads up to that reality. Could at any point anyone of them not done something that would lead to sin? Yes. But then how could that story come to its conclusion. Therefore, those who sinned but yet the story continued on must have been taken into consideration. History is on a schedule and, I believe, God has already created that schedule from beginning to end and we only witness the pieces we are allowed to see, but that doesn't change the fact that whatever He has predestined is not going to come true.
Physical reality and quantum reality are two different things but explain the same thing on different levels. The table in front of you is there as far as you know, however it is also not there on a different level. Which is wrong, or is one not real?
Exodus 9:12 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses
Exodus 12:29 At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well.
Romans 9:22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction?
The encasement for the foundation is only a vessel meant for destruction, as we all are, however there is resurrection. Every free will choice we make leads to only one conclusion, either God is King of our lives or He is not in our lives, but that does not change the fact that He is no matter what we think. Just because someone says, by their own free will, that God does not exist does not make it so. So what free will do they really have?
I agree with the overall view you are proposing with small differences @Cap but it seems to me that you may be conflating positions and mixing analogies or utilizing imperfect equations, such as . . . .“Just because someone says, by their own free will, that God does not exist does not make it so. So what free will do they really have?”
C
Cap
Guest
Not trying to conflate things just trying to express a vague human understanding with a limited spiritual perception. If we agree in principal then I think there is room to adjust and still not force a legalistic view for both of us.
If you teach your child not to steal, then they see an opportunity to steal but choose not to:
- Did they choose not to of their own free will?
- Or did they choose not to only because you had conditioned / influenced / trained them to make that decision because you have told them it would be wrong?
- If you knew with 100% certainty that you could trust them not to steal, because of their good upbringing, so already knew the outcome, are they no longer free?
I think this is what @Cap means by seeing this from multiple perspectives. From the child's perspective, they had free will and chose not to steal, and it was a difficult choice for them. From your perspective however, you knew with near-certainty what their decision would be - and you also know that you could have trained them to make the other decision (many children are intentionally trained to be opportunistic thieves), and been equally certain they would have made that decision also.
Also, had you simply chosen to withdraw your support and protection from that child soon after birth, you'd have massively increased the likelihood they'd have chosen to steal - simply by choosing not to actively train them, and leaving them needing to fend for themself. Is this not what God does with those people who choose not to follow Him - He simply withdraws His active support, and the end result is then predetermined (from His perspective) even though it's still their choice to make and even though He did nothing to actually train them to sin?
- Did they choose not to of their own free will?
- Or did they choose not to only because you had conditioned / influenced / trained them to make that decision because you have told them it would be wrong?
- If you knew with 100% certainty that you could trust them not to steal, because of their good upbringing, so already knew the outcome, are they no longer free?
I think this is what @Cap means by seeing this from multiple perspectives. From the child's perspective, they had free will and chose not to steal, and it was a difficult choice for them. From your perspective however, you knew with near-certainty what their decision would be - and you also know that you could have trained them to make the other decision (many children are intentionally trained to be opportunistic thieves), and been equally certain they would have made that decision also.
Also, had you simply chosen to withdraw your support and protection from that child soon after birth, you'd have massively increased the likelihood they'd have chosen to steal - simply by choosing not to actively train them, and leaving them needing to fend for themself. Is this not what God does with those people who choose not to follow Him - He simply withdraws His active support, and the end result is then predetermined (from His perspective) even though it's still their choice to make and even though He did nothing to actually train them to sin?
C
Cap
Guest
Exactly.
So God did not give Adam enough instruction and or training and intended for him to sin?
Can anything or anyone (including God) be anything other than what they are by nature through their own power?
It would seem that you are ignoring the influence of the enemy when it comes to perversion.
Us humans cannot understand the far greater mind of God. It is completely inappropriate to assign to him human motivations, such as "intended for him to sin". We simply do not know what He was thinking, and what He was thinking may have been on a plane that we could never comprehend.
I believe it is proper to ascribe motives that God has declared of himself. He is willing that none should perish! Many scriptures align with this principle. Those that seem to contradict can and must be understood in a way that does not violite the goodness and nature of the God of love.
Context, context, context! None of His chosen.
So Solomon was not chosen?
I didn't see Solomon's name in 2 Peter 3:9. Am I missing something or was the reference to a different passage?
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Chosen is not here either
2Pe 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
'These believers are warned to keep the faith lest they fall away. These are beloved and apparently "chosen". My point about Solomon is that he was loved by God and chosen he is never listed as one of the faithful. Cain was chosen, God spoke to him directly yet he fell. Saul was chosen and promised an established kingdom yet he fell also. For God to promise blessings to those He had no intention of giving them to is pointless and cruel. Not a God of Love at all.
We do not believe because we are chosen
We are chosen because we believe.
Sounds like there is room for boasting
C
Cap
Guest
You have this turned around. The only reason we have faith to believe is because we were given that faith in the first place.