Covenant?

Originally Posted by Vegas

This is not the content of the debate Chan....

I am asking you to, as a Christian, describe the love that God is portraying, the freewill love that we all-too-often preach about when in fact there is no choice... I have preached this many times and the fact of the matter is HOW CAN WE preach love and say that God gave us the choice because the Angels are forced to worship him, yet the punishment for lack of obedience to him is, simply put....

God portrayed His love by allowing His enemies (humanity) to enter into a covenant relationship with Him wherein they cease to be His enemies (keeping in mind that it is their sin, their rebellion against God that makes them His enemies). God portrayed His love by sending His only begotten Son to bear the punishment for our sins so that we could enter into that covenant relationship with Him.

You assume that humans have free will and that is why you are having such a problem with this. The human will is not free, it is enslaved to sin along with the rest of the human's being (and, consequently, humans left to themselves will always choose sin and choose against God). Further, the human will is not free because it does not have the right to choose against God.

Originally Posted by Chan

God portrayed His love by allowing His enemies (humanity) to enter into a covenant relationship with Him wherein they cease to be His enemies (keeping in mind that it is their sin, their rebellion against God that makes them His enemies). God portrayed His love by sending His only begotten Son to bear the punishment for our sins so that we could enter into that covenant relationship with Him.

You assume that humans have free will and that is why you are having such a problem with this. The human will is not free, it is enslaved to sin along with the rest of the human's being (and, consequently, humans left to themselves will always choose sin and choose against God). Further, the human will is not free because it does not have the right to choose against God.

CHAN, you are not addressing the issue at hand....

God DID give humanity the free will.... the tree in the garden to choose right from wrong... you are looking at this from a point of view that makes no sense.

I am saying right and wrong is subjective, not to the individual but to the view of God, so in all tenses there in fact is no free will... BUT God gave man the opportunity to choose him or not... that way he would feel real love... the angels could not do this because it was there nature.... this is why we can worship and angels can only praise....

Yet I ask once again (echo... echo) if there is a punishment for not choosing God, then is it truly a choice?

Originally Posted by Vegas

CHAN, you are not addressing the issue at hand....

I'm addressing what you are posting.

God DID give humanity the free will.... the tree in the garden to choose right from wrong... you are looking at this from a point of view that makes no sense.

No, God did not. God did not give those first two humans the right to choose to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, He commanded them specifically not to eat from it.

I am saying right and wrong is subjective, not to the individual but to the view of God, so in all tenses there in fact is no free will... BUT God gave man the opportunity to choose him or not... that way he would feel real love... the angels could not do this because it was there nature.... this is why we can worship and angels can only praise....

Right and wrong are not subjective at all, they are absolute and are according to divine decree.

Yet I ask once again (echo... echo) if there is a punishment for not choosing God, then is it truly a choice?

This notion of choice is a myth.

Originally Posted by Chan

I'm addressing what you are posting.

No way.... are you an idiot?

Originally Posted by Chan

No, God did not. God did not give those first two humans the right to choose to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, He commanded them specifically not to eat from it.

Yes He did command them, but he also gave them the choice otherwise they would not have been able to eat from it...

Originally Posted by Chan

Right and wrong are not subjective at all, they are absolute and are according to divine decree.

It is subjective very much so to what God thinks is right and wrong. Which in essence is divine decree. You are not looking at this topic like an intelligent person.. more like an idiot.

Originally Posted by Chan

This notion of choice is a myth.

Are you a calvanist?

Originally Posted by Vegas

No way.... are you an idiot?

Careful, the Admin types here might consider that a violation of the rules.

Yes He did command them, but he also gave them the choice otherwise they would not have been able to eat from it...

Capacity (physical ability) does not constitute choice.

It is subjective very much so to what God thinks is right and wrong. Which in essence is divine decree. You are not looking at this topic like an intelligent person.. more like an idiot.

No, what God says is right and what is wrong is not subjective at all. We humans like to think it is but there is only one standard of right and wrong. Even though we humans don't have perfect knowledge or understanding of what that right and wrong are, doesn't negate its absoluteness - particularly since God judges us based on that absolute standard.

Are you a Calvanist?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Chan

Careful, the Admin types here might consider that a violation of the rules.

I was asking...

Originally Posted by Chan

Capacity (physical ability) does not constitute choice.

Yes, the capacity to do something DOES mean you have a choice. You can do it or not, and since God is the creator of ALL he did create that choice.

Originally Posted by Chan

No, what God says is right and what is wrong is not subjective at all. We humans like to think it is but there is only one standard of right and wrong. Even though we humans don't have perfect knowledge or understanding of what that right and wrong are, doesn't negate its absoluteness - particularly since God judges us based on that absolute standard.

It is subjective to the will of God, are you not comprehending that? If it were not subjective then ham would still be forbidden meat and many other things we do would still be against religious law.

Originally Posted by Vegas

I was asking...

I know you were asking. There are people here (including some Admin types) that equate questions with statements.

Yes, the capacity to do something DOES mean you have a choice. You can do it or not, and since God is the creator of ALL he did create that choice.

No, merely being capable of doing something does not give you the right to choose whether or not to do it.

It is subjective to the will of God, are you not comprehending that? If it were not subjective then ham would still be forbidden meat and many other things we do would still be against religious law.

No, it is not subjective to the will of God (subject to the will of God but not subjective). Under the Law of Moses, which is God's covenant specifically with the nation of Israel, ham is still forbidden meat and there are many other things that are still against that law.

Originally Posted by Chan

I know you were asking. There are people here (including some Admin types) that equate questions with statements.

No, merely being capable of doing something does not give you the right to choose whether or not to do it.

No, it is not subjective to the will of God (subject to the will of God but not subjective). Under the Law of Moses, which is God's covenant specifically with the nation of Israel, ham is still forbidden meat and there are many other things that are still against that law.

The ability to do something does give the choice... and it subjective to the will of God... if God so changes his mind, then it is no longer the same... right and wrong is subjective and not objective.... By saying it is not subjective you are implying it is objective meaning that it is superfluous to any outside opinions... FALSE... it is subjective to the will of GOD.

The right is granted by ability.... a choice is not defined by law or restriction more or less it IS defined by ability. By saying someone does not have a choice, you are saying there is an ABSOLUTE decision meaning that someone else has predefined the outcome. God gave man the choice he said not to eat or you will "surely die". If there were to be no choice given, there would have been no tree.

Man in his stupidity (or should I say woman), weighed the consequences and decided so. In this she made three inherent choices... to disobey God, to obey the devil, to eat rather than not.

Originally Posted by Vegas

The ability to do something does give the choice... and it subjective to the will of God... if God so changes his mind, then it is no longer the same... right and wrong is subjective and not objective.... By saying it is not subjective you are implying it is objective meaning that it is superfluous to any outside opinions... FALSE... it is subjective to the will of GOD.

Again, merely having the capacity (physical or mental ability) to do something does not give us the right to choose whether or not to do it. Also, there is nothing "subjective" about the will of God. His will is absolute and God does not ever "change his mind." As for your suggestion that I'm implying something, I don't imply - ever! I made a very clear statement: "it is not subjective to the will of God (subject to the will of God but not subjective)" and there is nothing else to be derived from that statement. There is nothing subjective about right and wrong. I'll grant you that right and wrong are subject to (under the authority, determined by) of the will of God; however, God's will is immutable.

The right is granted by ability.... a choice is not defined by law or restriction more or less it IS defined by ability. By saying someone does not have a choice, you are saying there is an ABSOLUTE decision meaning that someone else has predefined the outcome. God gave man the choice he said not to eat or you will "surely die". If there were to be no choice given, there would have been no tree.

Again, ability (capacity, capability) does not constitute having a right. A person may very well be physically and mentally capable (ability) of committing murder but the law does not give him the right (choice) to murder and, thus, the restriction is very definitely defined by law and not by ability. Further, I am indeed saying that God's law and God's will are absolute and that God has decreed the end from the beginning. And, no, God commanding Adam and Eve not to eat from that one tree and telling them that the consequence if they disobeyed would be death is not giving them the right to choose!

Man in his stupidity (or should I say woman), weighed the consequences and decided so. In this she made three inherent choices... to disobey God, to obey the devil, to eat rather than not.

I doubt very much that either Adam or Eve weighed the consequences of their disobedience. The only thing Eve was thinking was that the fruit looked good and that eating it would make her "wise" and "like God." Adam didn't appear to even be thinking: he simply took the fruit that Eve gave him and he ate.

Originally Posted by Chan

Again, merely having the capacity (physical or mental ability) to do something does not give us the right to choose whether or not to do it. Also, there is nothing "subjective" about the will of God. His will is absolute and God does not ever "change his mind." As for your suggestion that I'm implying something, I don't imply - ever! I made a very clear statement: "it is not subjective to the will of God (subject to the will of God but not subjective)" and there is nothing else to be derived from that statement. There is nothing subjective about right and wrong. I'll grant you that right and wrong are subject to (under the authority, determined by) of the will of God; however, God's will is immutable.

From reading the previous posts the right to make a decision is and has not been part of this discussion Chan, but the matter of entering into a covenant that is not balanced.

You are saying that right and wrong is not subjective to God's will... that is wrong, the fact is that the definition of right and wrong COULD change it MAY not due to the fact that it is immutable (which I disagree on the grounds that God can do whatever he pleases).

So in essence when you say it is not subject you MUST there is absolutely no way around it imply that it is objective. And the law is established by the will of God, not by some external force.

Originally Posted by Chan

Again, ability (capacity, capability) does not constitute having a right. A person may very well be physically and mentally capable (ability) of committing murder but the law does not give him the right (choice) to murder and, thus, the restriction is very definitely defined by law and not by ability. Further, I am indeed saying that God's law and God's will are absolute and that God has decreed the end from the beginning. And, no, God commanding Adam and Eve not to eat from that one tree and telling them that the consequence if they disobeyed would be death is not giving them the right to choose!

This is confusing? So you are saying that God in all his might and power, did not give Adam and Eve the right to choose yet they still had the ability? Odd theology for a proclaimed Calvinist.

Originally Posted by Chan

I doubt very much that either Adam or Eve weighed the consequences of their disobedience. The only thing Eve was thinking was that the fruit looked good and that eating it would make her "wise" and "like God." Adam didn't appear to even be thinking: he simply took the fruit that Eve gave him and he ate.

Why would you doubt it? The serpent had to lie and convince them otherwise... if they were not weighing the consequence of death then why on earth did he have to do this?

Very interesting thread... Chan I will have to side with Vegas on this one. But the question still stands....

If God created a covenant consisting of free will... meaning you can enter it or not... then why is there a consequence of hell for not? Does that mean it is not free will since there is fire or golden streets?