Predestination

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
One can be greater than his parents, despite having been created by them.

* this is not a parent-child relationship... and parents cannot create their own child, because if they can, nobody is barren, and nobody can have unwanted pregnacies...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You are diverting the subject to detract from your inability to successfully argue, "One who recognizes the love of the truth as truth; does not believe what is false; and understands that rejecting the love of the truth will result in not being saved; would reject the love of the truth so as to not be saved."

* hah, my friend... you are diverting the subject to detract from your inability to successfully argue the thread topic, for goodness' sake... your stand is that there is no free will... where is that stand now? where? c'mon, admit it, you just diverted the subject...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
For the purposes of this argument, the objective truth is the truth one must accept so as to be saved.

* but you are being subjective... you are not what you say/post...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The consideration of the verses in question within the context of the inclusion of additional verses changes nothing.

* it does, that's why it is obvious that you've taken those verses out of context... if not, you should've successfully argue your stand waaayy back...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[list=1][*]Psalm 90:2 states that for the whole of eternity, He will be God, not that He will be for the whole of eternity.

[*]Even if we presume that God is an eternal being, it does not follow from this that He can exist both inside and outside of time, as an eternal being by definition exists only outside of time.

[*]Even if we presume that God is an eternal being, it does not follow from this that He does not age, which is what I asked you to substantiate in the first place.[/list]

* "FROM eternity TO eternity" does not ring any bell to you... first, the conjunctions, now, sigh...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By all means, indicate [b]where Psalm 90:2 specifically states “God has no beginning or end.”[/B]

* from eternity to eternity... from everlasting to everlasting... in the other verses i gave, God is said to be eternal/everlasting...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yes, I am right.

* yes, you think you're right...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Simply stating, “An eternal being who exists outside of time by definition can exist inside of time,” is not evidence that an eternal being who exists outside of time by definition exists outside of time.

Nor is stating, “God exists outside of time,” evidence that God exists outside of time.

* the verses i gave tells us that God is an eternal being, does not age, exist from eternity to eternity... God is eternal according to the Bible... God can exist outside of time... but the fact that He can interfere in our time, only means He exists also inside of time... that is not really hard to swallow if you believe that God is the Supreme Being and Creator of everything... 😉

Originally posted by peejayd
* this is not a parent-child relationship... and parents cannot create their own child, because if they can, nobody is barren, and nobody can have unwanted pregnacies...

[list=1][*]I did not state that God has a parent-child relationship with human beings. I stated that a biological parent has a creator-creation relationship with his child.

[*]That some cannot biologically reproduce does not detract from the creator-creation relationship that one who can biologically reproduce has with his child.

[*]Your post does not address that one can be greater than his parents, despite having been created by them.[/list]

Originally posted by peejayd
* hah, my friend... you are diverting the subject to detract from your inability to successfully argue the thread topic, for goodness' sake... your stand is that there is no free will... where is that stand now? where? c'mon, admit it, you just diverted the subject...

If I am the one who is diverting the subject, then why are you the one who is dodging the question?

Regarding my argument, one need only read this post to see how we arrived here.

Originally posted by peejayd
* but you are being subjective... you are not what you say/post...

😕

Originally posted by peejayd
* it does, that's why it is obvious that you've taken those verses out of context... if not, you should've successfully argue your stand waaayy back...

Your entire argument is the childish equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, “Is not!” You have refuted nothing, and the only thing that you have proved is that you are guilty of Slothful Induction.

Originally posted by peejayd
* "FROM eternity TO eternity" does not ring any bell to you... first, the conjunctions, now, sigh...

Psalm 90:2

Before the mountains were born or You gave birth to the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.

From everlasting to everlasting, George Washington will be the first president of the United States of America, but it does not follow from this that George Washington will be from everlasting to everlasting.

Moreover, your post does not address whether an eternal being can exist inside of time, or whether an eternal being can age, which is what I asked you to substantiate in the first place.

Originally posted by peejayd
* from eternity to eternity... from everlasting to everlasting... in the other verses i gave, God is said to be eternal/everlasting...

Where does it specifically state “God has no beginning or end,” in Psalm 90:2?

Originally posted by peejayd
* yes, you think you're right...

If my argument is so unsound, then you should have been able to successfully refute it before now.

Originally posted by peejayd
* the verses i gave tells us that God is an eternal being, does not age, exist from eternity to eternity... God is eternal according to the Bible... God can exist outside of time... but the fact that He can interfere in our time, only means He exists also inside of time... that is not really hard to swallow if you believe that God is the Supreme Being and Creator of everything... 😉

Citing Bible verses that make positive claims about the nature of God is no more authoritative then you making positive claims about the nature of God. Simply making declarative statements is not evidence of anything. I am asking you to prove that an eternal being who exists outside of time by definition exists inside of time.

Originally posted by Nellinator
?? I'm pretty sure this isn't quite right peejayd.

* i'm pretty sure it was right, my friend...

Originally posted by Regret
John 4:24 does not necessitate the limiting interpretation you take, although your interpretation is a possible interpretation.

* no, the statement in John 4:24 says that God is a spirit... so saying God has a physical form is only your (and your organization's) interpretation...

Originally posted by Regret
Mormons believe the KJV to be the most accurate translation, this verse isn't limiting in the KJV.

* God is a spirit and His being, according to James 1:17, does not change...

Originally posted by Regret
Yes, it is unbiblical, nothing spiritual occurring following the NT is Biblical, get over it, it doesn't necessitate something being wrong. Christ was unbiblical and so the Jews had the Romans kill him, everything in the Bible was unbiblical at one point in time.

* Christ was unbiblical? heck, Christ is fulfilled various prophesies in the OT, please compose yourself...

Originally posted by Regret
I don't believe the Bible to be the end-all of God's dealings with man.

* wrong, all doctrines not according to the Bible, more specifically to the teachings of Christ, should be rejected...

Originally posted by Regret
Given this, God can reveal things that are not stated in the Bible.

* maybe... but that does not mean that we have to believe something blatantly unbiblical...

Originally posted by Regret
The Bible itself states that much of what Christ taught/did is not in the Bible (John 21:25), it also is unbiblical. Get over it.

* wrong... many things which were not written, were those what Jesus did... and not what Jesus taught... you should get over that notion...

Originally posted by Regret
Joseph's claim is only unbiblical because up to that point no one had seen the Father. The Bible is only a number of men's claims, if you would like to state that something is only a claim. Joseph Smith saw God, so it trumps interpretation of the Bible on the subject.

* it is only a claim, and it is unbiblical... and it is only your (and your organization's) belief...

Originally posted by Regret
John 1:18 speaks past tense, so it limits nothing.

* it speaks of any given time prior to that time of writing... if greater men in the Bible had not seen God in the past, what makes you think God would appear Himself to a mere Joseph Smith?

Originally posted by Regret
Verse 16 is referring to Christ, are you stating that no man can, or has, seen Christ? Sorry, I Timothy doesn't support your case.

* it does support my argument because verse 16 is the Father, not Christ...

Originally posted by Regret
Luke 24:39 was a statement to the physical resurrection, it denies the idea that the resurrection is not physical. Christ is stating that look, I am no longer dead, my spirit and body have been reunited as they should be.

* i'm not talking about the resurrection... i'm talking about Jesus' meaning of a spirit... Jesus says a spirit does not have flesh and bones, tantamount of saying a spirit does not have physical form...

Originally posted by Regret
We have argued about this a number of times. I believe having a spirit does not limit one to not having a physical form as well. God is a spirit only states that he has a spirit not that he does not have a physical form. Your interpretation is in error imo, and mine is in your opinion.

* "your interpretation is in error IMO, and mine is in your opinion"... very true... however, what i say is Biblical, and yours is not... 😉

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[list=1][*]I did not state that God has a parent-child relationship with human beings. I stated that a biological parent has a creator-creation relationship with his child.

[*]That some cannot biologically reproduce does not detract from the creator-creation relationship that one who can biologically reproduce has with his child.

[*]Your post does not address that one can be greater than his parents, despite having been created by them.[/list]

* i also did not say that God DID NOT have a parent-child relationship with human beings... what i'm saying is, we are not talking about a parent-child relationship, but a creator-creature relationship...

* then your argument is destroyed, if parents are creators, they can produce or not produce an offspring according to their will... hence, parents are not creators and your parallelism is unsound...

* children can be greater than their parents because parents are not creators...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If I am the one who is diverting the subject, then why are you the one who is dodging the question?

Regarding my argument, one need only read this post to see how we arrived here.

* i'm not dodging... it is irrelevant to answer something not in connection with the topic at hand... again, where was your original argument now?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Your entire argument is the childish equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, “Is not!” You have refuted nothing, and the only thing that you have proved is that you are guilty of Slothful Induction.

* i have already proven that you've taken the verses out of context, and that, my friend, had just refuted your whole argument about predestination and free will... your posts seems to be the one which is childish, so please compose yourself...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
From everlasting to everlasting, George Washington will be the first president of the United States of America, but it does not follow from this that George Washington will be from everlasting to everlasting.

* God exists from eternity to eternity... and again, you ignored the other supporting verses saying God is eternal...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Moreover, your post does not address whether an eternal being can exist inside of time, or whether an eternal being can age, which is what I asked you to substantiate in the first place.

* existing from eternity to eternity? ages? you are very good at ignoring and overlooking...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Where does it specifically state “God has no beginning or end,” in Psalm 90:2?

* FROM eternity TO eternity... God is eternal...

e·ter·nal
– without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal):

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If my argument is so unsound, then you should have been able to successfully refute it before now.

* why need to refute something unsound? very irrelevant...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Citing Bible verses that make positive claims about the nature of God is no more authoritative then you making positive claims about the nature of God. Simply making declarative statements is not evidence of anything. I am asking you to [b]prove that an eternal being who exists outside of time by definition exists inside of time. [/B]

* God's state of being (not nature), according to the Bible, is eternal... that means that He exist outside of time, because He Himself created time, He created Day and Night, the Sun and the Moon, etc... but the fact that He also created human beings, even predestinating some of them, tells us that God can exist inside of time, in our time... 😉

Originally posted by peejayd
* i also did not say that God DID NOT have a parent-child relationship with human beings... what i'm saying is, we are not talking about a parent-child relationship, but a creator-creature relationship...

* then your argument is destroyed, if parents are creators, they can produce or not produce an offspring according to their will... hence, parents are not creators and your parallelism is unsound...

* children can be greater than their parents because parents are not creators...

A biological parent is a creator, and can create or not create a child based on his or her will.

Originally posted by peejayd
* i'm not dodging... it is irrelevant to answer something not in connection with the topic at hand... again, where was your original argument now?

If you are not dodging the question, then why have you not answered it yet?

One need only read this post to see how we arrived at this question, and to understand its relevance to the argument.

Originally posted by peejayd
* i have already proven that you've taken the verses out of context, and that, my friend, had just refuted your whole argument about predestination and free will... your posts seems to be the one which is childish, so please compose yourself...

Simply making a declarative statement that holds an opposite position is not a refutation.

Originally posted by peejayd
* God exists from eternity to eternity... and again, you ignored the other supporting verses saying God is eternal...

By all means, indicate where the specific phrase, “God exists from eternity to eternity,” appears in Psalm 90:2. The answer is that it does not. Psalm 90:2 states, “from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.”

“From everlasting to everlasting, George Washington will be the first president of the United States of America,” is quiet different than “George Washington will be from everlasting to everlasting.”

Originally posted by peejayd
* existing from eternity to eternity? ages? you are very good at ignoring and overlooking...

Even if we presume that God is an eternal being, this addresses the nature of God, it tells us nothing about the nature of an eternal being. I am asking you to substantiate the positive claims that you have made, i.e. an eternal being who by definition exists outside of time can exist inside of time, and that an eternal being does not age.

Originally posted by peejayd
* FROM eternity TO eternity... God is eternal...

e·ter·nal
– without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal):

By all means, indicate where the specific phrase, “God exists from eternity to eternity,” appears in Psalm 90:2. The answer is that it does not. Psalm 90:2 states, “from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.”

“From everlasting to everlasting, George Washington will be the first president of the United States of America,” is quiet different than “George Washington will be from everlasting to everlasting.”

Originally posted by peejayd
* why need to refute something unsound? very irrelevant...

Because an argument stands until proved invalid or unsound.

Originally posted by peejayd
* God's state of being (not nature), according to the Bible, is eternal... that means that He exist outside of time, because He Himself created time, He created Day and Night, the Sun and the Moon, etc... but the fact that He also created human beings, even predestinating some of them, tells us that God can exist inside of time, in our time... 😉

Again, even if we presume this to be true, this addresses the nature of God, it tells us nothing about the nature of an eternal being. I am asking you to substantiate the positive claims that you have made, i.e. an eternal being who by definition exists outside of time can exist inside of time, and that an eternal being does not age.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
A biological parent is a creator, and can create or not create a child based on his or her will.

* stop being stubborn, a parent is not a creator, and he/she does not have any power to create or not to create a child according to his/her will... if you have any problems with that, explain the unwanted pregnancies and barren people...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If you are not dodging the question, then why have you not answered it yet?

* if we were to presume that your argument is unsound, what is the point of answering to it? why should i go with your flow? still, your line of questioning is very much irrelevant to your original argument... which is, for the third freaking time, i'm asking you again: "where was it now???"

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
One need only read this post to see how we arrived at this question, and to understand its relevance to the argument.

* really? i understand you failed to comprehend conjunctions...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Simply making a declarative statement that holds an opposite position is not a refutation.

* i never did that... i gave the context of the verses you've taken them out of... and by ignoring the grammar, you came up with a very irrelevant argument... i'll give you five stars credit for diverting the subject...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By all means, indicate where the specific phrase, “God exists from eternity to eternity,” appears in Psalm 90:2. The answer is that it does not. Psalm 90:2 states, “from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.”

“From everlasting to everlasting, George Washington will be the first president of the United States of America,” is quiet different than “George Washington will be from everlasting to everlasting.”

* wrong analysis -> from everlasting to everlasting, you are George Washington... hence, George Washington is George Washington from everlasting to everlasting...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Even if we presume that God is an eternal being, this addresses the nature of God, it tells us nothing about the nature of an eternal being. I am asking you to substantiate the positive claims that you have made, i.e. an eternal being who by definition exists outside of time can exist inside of time, and that an eternal being does not age.

* here:

Originally posted by peejayd
e·ter·nal
– without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal):

* the question is, what is the word, "eternal" means to you?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By all means, indicate where the specific phrase, “God exists from eternity to eternity,” appears in Psalm 90:2. The answer is that it does not. Psalm 90:2 states, “from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.”

“From everlasting to everlasting, George Washington will be the first president of the United States of America,” is quiet different than “George Washington will be from everlasting to everlasting.”

* another blatant bypass:

Originally posted by peejayd
* in Psalms 90:2, God exists from eternity to eternity... no one can exist from eternity to eternity if he is not eternal... think about it... add these verses:

"But now is manifested, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, is made known unto all the nations unto obedience of faith:"
Romans 16:26

"And Abraham planted a grove in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the Lord, the everlasting God."
Genesis 21:33

"The eternal God is thy dwelling-place, And underneath are the everlasting arms. And he thrust out the enemy from before thee, And said, Destroy."
Deuteronomy 33:27

"Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding."
Isaiah 40:28

"Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen."
I Timothy 1:17

* God is eternal according to the Bible... if God is not eternal according to your belief, we should not argue in the first place because it is your opinion and you are entitled to it... but as long as you're using the Bible, i will always oppose your belief... i'll just stop when you start saying that God is not eternal according to your belief and NOT according to the Bible...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Because an argument stands until proved invalid or unsound.

* and i successfully did, you're just too good ignoring it...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Again, even if we presume this to be true, this addresses the nature of God, it tells us nothing about the nature of an eternal being. I am asking you to substantiate the positive claims that you have made, i.e. an eternal being who by definition exists outside of time can exist inside of time, and that an eternal being does not age.

* God, according to the Bible, is eternal... hence, God is an eternal being... my argument is pretty clear, care to stop first to read and undertand it?

Originally posted by peejayd
* God's state of being (not nature), according to the Bible, is eternal... that means that He exist outside of time, because He Himself created time, He created Day and Night, the Sun and the Moon, etc... but the fact that He also created human beings, even predestinating some of them, tells us that God can exist inside of time, in our time...

* okay? 😉

Originally posted by peejayd
* stop being stubborn, a parent is not a creator, and he/she does not have any power to create or not to create a child according to his/her will... if you have any problems with that, explain the unwanted pregnancies and barren people...

I did not state that a parent is a creator. I stated that a biological parent is a creator. Someone who is sterile is not a biological parent.

An unwanted pregnancy can be avoided by abstaining from sexual intercourse. In this way, a biological parent can choose to create or not to create a child.

Originally posted by peejayd
* if we were to presume that your argument is unsound, what is the point of answering to it? why should i go with your flow? still, your line of questioning is very much irrelevant to your original argument... which is, for the third freaking time, i'm asking you again: "where was it now???"

[list=1][*]An argument may be presumed to be valid for the purposes of determining whether or not it is sound, but an argument is never presumed not to be sound; either the argument is sound or it is not.

[*]It is my argument that, “No one has free will according to The Bible.” I cited 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 in which God sends “upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they may be judged who did not believe the truth,” as a passage which supports this.

You argued that they “refused to love the truth so as to not be saved” before God sent “upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false.”

To which I replied that, “It follows from rejecting the love of the truth so as to not be saved that they already believed what is false.”

For your argument to be sound, you have to explain why:

[list][*]One who recognizes the love of the truth as truth; does not believe what is false; and understands the rejecting the love of the truth will result in not being saved; would reject the love of the truth so as to not be saved.

[*]God would send “upon [those who do not believe] a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false,” if they were already to be judged for not believing the truth.[/list][/list]

Originally posted by peejayd
* really? i understand you failed to comprehend conjunctions...

You apparently fail to understand basic grammar:

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.

Why did God “send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false?”

“In order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth.”

This would be completely redundant if they did not believe the truth to begin with.

Originally posted by peejayd
* i never did that... i gave the context of the verses you've taken them out of... and by ignoring the grammar, you came up with a very irrelevant argument... i'll give you five stars credit for diverting the subject...

“According to this book, pink elephants can fly,” is a declarative statement. It does not follow from this that there is such a thing as pink elephants, and that if there is, that they can indeed fly.

Originally posted by peejayd
* wrong analysis -> from everlasting to everlasting, you are George Washington... hence, George Washington is George Washington from everlasting to everlasting...

From everlasting to everlasting, George Washington will be George Washington, but George Washington will not be from everlasting to everlasting.

Originally posted by peejayd
* the question is, what is the word, "eternal" means to you?

The meaning of the term eternal is not in question. What is in question is:

[list=1][*]Whether or not you can substantiate that God s an eternal being.

[*]Whether or not you can substantiate that an eternal being who exists outside of time by definition can exist inside of time.

[*]Whether or not you can substantiate that an eternal being does not age.[/list]

Originally posted by peejayd
* God is eternal according to the Bible... if God is not eternal according to your belief, we should not argue in the first place because it is your opinion and you are entitled to it... but as long as you're using the Bible, i will always oppose your belief... i'll just stop when you start saying that God is not eternal according to your belief and NOT according to the Bible...

Again, simply ascribing the term "eternal" to God does not make Him an eternal being. You must substantiate that God is and eternal being before ascribing the term "eternal" to Him.

Originally posted by peejayd
* God, according to the Bible, is eternal... hence, God is an eternal being... my argument is pretty clear, care to stop first to read and undertand it?

A logical inference cannot be made about a class based on the characteristics of a single member, i.e. one cannot infer the nature of an eternal being from the characteristics of God. Hence, why even if we presume that God is an eternal being, this tells us nothing about the nature of an eternal being, which is what I asked you to substantiate in the first place.

See thread: God and Time

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I did not state that a parent is a creator. I stated that a biological parent is a creator. Someone who is sterile is not a biological parent.

An unwanted pregnancy can be avoided by abstaining from sexual intercourse. In this way, a biological parent can choose to create or not to create a child.

* wrong again... because of advanced technology, barren people can be biological parents e.g. artificial insemination, artificial fertilization, etc... but the fact that they cannot produce a child without the help of technology simply means they are not creators...

* avoiding unwanted pregnancy by abstaining from sexual intercourse, very true but also very shallow... if a couple does not want to have a child but are sexually active, there is a great possibility of pregnancy... which, again, only means that they are not creators...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[list=1][*]An argument may be presumed to be valid for the purposes of determining whether or not it is sound, but an argument is never presumed not to be sound; either the argument is sound or it is not.

[*]It is my argument that, “No one has free will according to The Bible.” I cited 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 in which God sends “upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they may be judged who did not believe the truth,” as a passage which supports this.

You argued that they “refused to love the truth so as to not be saved” before God sent “upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false.”

To which I replied that, “It follows from rejecting the love of the truth so as to not be saved that they already believed what is false.”

For your argument to be sound, you have to explain why:

[list][*]One who recognizes the love of the truth as truth; does not believe what is false; and understands the rejecting the love of the truth will result in not being saved; would reject the love of the truth so as to not be saved.

[*]God would send “upon [those who do not believe] a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false,” if they were already to be judged for not believing the truth.[/list][/list]

* see? that is the result of either blatant overlooking or simply stubbornness...

"The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders,
And with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false,
So that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
II Thessalonians 2:9-12

* firstly, the conjunctions that tells us which is which... "because" tells us of the cause and "therefore" tells us of the effect... failing to understand conjunction is, really failing to understand basic grammar...

* secondly, the act of refusing is a very big proof of possessing the power of free will... and this literally destroyed your original argument, by which until now, you can never refute...

* thirdly, they did not believe what is false in the first place, they only refused to love the truth... it means that they do know what is true and what is false... what they did was refused to love the truth... refusing to love the truth is different from believing what is false...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
One who recognizes the love of the truth as truth; does not believe what is false;

* because he who recognizes the truth believes the truth and not what is false...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
and understands the rejecting the love of the truth will result in not being saved; would reject the love of the truth so as to not be saved.

* because embracing truth would result many sacrifices... one of these sacrifices is:

"And you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved."
Matthew 10:22

* majority of the 1st century Christians are hated, persecuted, and even killed, because of believing in Christ, hence believing the truth...

* rejecting to love the truth is also rejecting Christ's doctrines... hence, no more sacrifices...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
God would send “upon [those who do not believe] a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false,” if they were already to be judged for not believing the truth.

* they are not yet judged, what only occurred was that they rejected to love the truth... they do not believe what is false, they only rejected to love the truth...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You apparently fail to understand basic grammar:

Why did God “send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false?”

“In order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth.”

This would be completely redundant if they did not believe the truth to begin with.

* i fail to understand grammar? and your argument is a question? (Why did God “send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false?”) don't make me laugh...

* it is you who do not understand the verse, so it is also you who fail to understand grammar, specifically re: conjunctions...

* what you did was twist the meaning of the verse... and you know what's redundant? it's me refuting your argument and you ignoring it...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
From everlasting to everlasting, George Washington will be George Washington, but George Washington will not be from everlasting to everlasting.

* wrong... there is no "will be" in Psalms 90:2... it obviously shows how bold you are in twisting the Scriptures... from everlasting to everlasting, you are George Washington... hence, George Washington is George Washington from everlasting to everlasting... that should be the correct parallelism...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The meaning of the term eternal is not in question. What is in question is:

* you make it seem like it is...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
“According to this book, pink elephants can fly,” is a declarative statement. It does not follow from this that there is such a thing as pink elephants, and that if there is, that they can indeed fly.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[list=1][*]Whether or not you can substantiate that God s an eternal being.

[*]Whether or not you can substantiate that an eternal being who exists outside of time by definition can exist inside of time.

[*]Whether or not you can substantiate that an eternal being does not age.[/list]

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Again, simply ascribing the term "eternal" to God does not make Him an eternal being. You must substantiate that God is and eternal being before ascribing the term "eternal" to Him.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
A logical inference cannot be made about a class based on the characteristics of a single member, i.e. one cannot infer the nature of an eternal being from the characteristics of God. Hence, why even if we presume that God is an eternal being, this tells us nothing about the nature of an eternal being, which is what I asked you to substantiate in the first place.

* that's why i made it easier for you: "God is eternal according to the Bible... if God is not eternal according to your belief, we should not argue in the first place because it is your opinion and you are entitled to it... but as long as you're using the Bible, i will always oppose your belief... i'll just stop when you start saying that God is not eternal according to your belief and NOT according to the Bible..." do we have a deal or not? 😉

Originally posted by peejayd
* wrong again... because of advanced technology, barren people can be biological parents e.g. artificial insemination, artificial fertilization, etc... but the fact that they cannot produce a child without the help of technology simply means they are not creators...

Reproductive technology helps infertile couples to conceive. Do you know the difference between infertile and sterile?

Originally posted by peejayd
* avoiding unwanted pregnancy by abstaining from sexual intercourse, very true but also very shallow... if a couple does not want to have a child but are sexually active, there is a great possibility of pregnancy... which, again, only means that they are not creators...

This does not change that a biological parent can choose to create or not to create a child by regulating sexual intercourse.

Originally posted by peejayd
* see? that is the result of either blatant overlooking or simply stubbornness...

"The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders,
And with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, [b]because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false,
So that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
II Thessalonians 2:9-12

* firstly, the conjunctions that tells us which is which... "because" tells us of the cause and "therefore" tells us of the effect... failing to understand conjunction is, really failing to understand basic grammar...

* secondly, the act of refusing is a very big proof of possessing the power of free will... and this literally destroyed your original argument, by which until now, you can never refute...

* thirdly, they did not believe what is false in the first place, they only refused to love the truth... it means that they do know what is true and what is false... what they did was refused to love the truth... refusing to love the truth is different from believing what is false... [/B]

[list=1][*]

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.

The terms because and therefore do not appear in 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12.

With regard to the grammatical structure of 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, the prepositional phrase, “in order” explains the relationship of the subject, “God,” and the verb phrase, “will send upon them,” to the predicate, “that they may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.”

Why will God “send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false?” “In order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.”

[*]If they are rejecting the love of the truth, because God sent “upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they may be judged who did not believe the truth,” then their will is being manipulated by God, and is not free at all.

[*]You have yet to explain why one who recognizes the love of the truth as truth; does not believe what is false; and understands that rejecting the love of the truth will result in not being saved; would reject the love of the truth so as to not be saved.[/list]

Originally posted by peejayd
* because he who recognizes the truth believes the truth and not what is false...

The contrapositive of this is that he who does not recognize the truth as truth believes what is false. Hence, it follows from rejecting the love of the truth that one believes what is false.

Originally posted by peejayd
* because embracing truth would result many sacrifices... one of these sacrifices is:

"And you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But he who [b]endures to the end will be saved."
Matthew 10:22

* majority of the 1st century Christians are hated, persecuted, and even killed, because of believing in Christ, hence believing the truth...

* rejecting to love the truth is also rejecting Christ's doctrines... hence, no more sacrifices... [/B]

In order to accept this explanation, one would have to believe that a reasonable person would make a conscious decision to accept false beliefs, and not be saved.

Originally posted by peejayd
* they are not yet judged, what only occurred was that they rejected to love the truth... they do not believe what is false, they only rejected to love the truth...

I did not state that they had already been judged. I stated that they were to be judged.

If they were already to be judged for rejecting the truth, what is the point of making them believe what is false?

Originally posted by peejayd
* i fail to understand grammar? and your argument is a question? (Why did God “send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false?”) don't make me laugh...

* it is you who do not understand the verse, so it is also you who fail to understand grammar, specifically re: conjunctions...

* what you did was twist the meaning of the verse... and you know what's redundant? it's me refuting your argument and you ignoring it...

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.

The terms because and therefore do not appear in 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12.

With regard to the grammatical structure of 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, the prepositional phrase, “in order” explains the relationship of the subject, “God,” and the verb phrase, “will send upon them,” to the predicate, “that they may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.”

Why will God “send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false?” “In order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.”

Originally posted by peejayd
* wrong... there is no [b]"will be" in Psalms 90:2... it obviously shows how bold you are in twisting the Scriptures... from everlasting to everlasting, you are George Washington... hence, George Washington is George Washington from everlasting to everlasting... that should be the correct parallelism... [/B]

The inclusion of the phrase “will be” does not change the meaning of the statement.

The point is that George Washington will always be George Washington, but George Washington himself will not always be, i.e. exist.

Originally posted by peejayd
* you make it seem like it is...

By asking you to substantiate the positive claims that you have made?

Originally posted by peejayd
* that's why i made it easier for you: "God is eternal according to the Bible... if God is not eternal according to your belief, we should not argue in the first place because it is your opinion and you are entitled to it... but as long as you're using the Bible, i will always oppose your belief... i'll just stop when you start saying that God is not eternal according to your belief and NOT according to the Bible..." do we have a deal or not? 😉

The topic of this thread is the nature of the characteristics of omniscience and free agency, and whether or not the existence of one precludes the existence of the other. You may believe whatever you like about The Bible. The fact remains that The Bible makes claims that are consistent with the existence of the characteristic of omniscience, and the non-existence of the characteristic of free agency.

Are you serious?

2 Thessalonians 9-12
The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

1. "...every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing." They are currently perishing--dying as they live--because they are dead in the Spirit and live only in the flesh.

2. "They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved." Why are they perishing? Because they have stubbornly refused to love the truth of God and have willfully rejected salvation.

3. "For this reason": It is because of their refusal to accept God.

4. "...God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness." God will send to those who have ignored the truth, refused salvation, and taken pleasure in sinful things a "delusion" that will allow the man of lawlessness to deceive them.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Are you serious?

Verse explanation:

1. "...every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing." They are currently perishing--dying as they live--because they are dead in the Spirit and live only in the flesh.

2. "They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved." Why are they perishing? Because they have stubbornly refused to love the truth of God and have willfully rejected salvation.

3. "For this reason": It is because of their refusal to accept God.

4. "...God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness." God will send to those who have ignored the truth, refused salvation, and taken pleasure in sinful things a "delusion" that will allow the man of lawlessness to deceive them.

Explain why one who recognizes the love of the truth as truth; does not believe what is false; and understands that rejecting the love of the truth will result in not being saved; would reject the love of the truth so as to not be saved.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Are you serious?

Verse explanation:

1. "...every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing." They are currently perishing--dying as they live--because they are dead in the Spirit and live only in the flesh.

2. "They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved." Why are they perishing? Because they have stubbornly refused to love the truth of God and have willfully rejected salvation.

3. "For this reason": It is because of their refusal to accept God.

4. "...God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness." God will send to those who have ignored the truth, refused salvation, and taken pleasure in sinful things a "delusion" that will allow the man of lawlessness to deceive them.

Explain why one who recognizes the love of the truth as truth; does not believe what is false; and understands that rejecting the love of the truth will result in not being saved; would reject the love of the truth so as to not be saved.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Explain why one who recognizes the love of the truth as truth; does not believe what is false; and understands that rejecting the love of the truth will result in not being saved; would reject the love of the truth so as to not be saved.

Note, however, that one doesn't necessarily need to recognize it--it is that one has refused to recognize it.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Because one is a stubborn SOB.

Note, however, that one doesn't necessarily need to recognize it--it is that one has refused to recognize it.

In order to accept this explanation, one would have to believe that a reasonable person would make a conscious decision to accept false beliefs, and not be saved.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In order to accept this explanation, one would have to believe that a reasonable person would make a conscious decision to accept false beliefs, and not be saved.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I was more thinking "LA-LA-LA GOD ISN'T REAL."

This presumes that the existence of God is apparent.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This presumes that the existence of God is apparent.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Discuss.

God has a plan for everyone, his plan is:
"If he/she asks for forgiveness, i'll forgive him/her and accept him/her into heaven, otherwise, hell is the way"
and
"If he/she believes in me when he/she dies, i'll let him/her through heaven gates, otherwise, nope"

Simple as.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Reproductive technology helps infertile couples to conceive. Do you know the difference between infertile and sterile?

* of course, that's why i did NOT use those words in my argument...

Originally posted by FeceMan
Are you serious?

Verse explanation:

1. "...every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing." They are currently perishing--dying as they live--because they are dead in the Spirit and live only in the flesh.

2. "They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved." Why are they perishing? Because they have stubbornly refused to love the truth of God and have willfully rejected salvation.

3. "For this reason": It is because of their refusal to accept God.

4. "...God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness." God will send to those who have ignored the truth, refused salvation, and taken pleasure in sinful things a "delusion" that will allow the man of lawlessness to deceive them.

* same point as mine...

* however, i would like to extend my apologies... i cannot respond anymore to any discussions - as active as before - because i already had a job with hectic skeds... but i will still give some of my comments or reactions sporadically... thanks, everyone... happy discussing here in KMC... 🙂