Is there a difference?

Not "first-cause" choices.

 

What is the complete definition of "first cause" choices?

 

This is significant because Arminians and these far less consistent, mysterious "non-reformed" people must have choices independent from this series of causes- which is a ridiculous logical fallacy. It is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE and totally unbiblical.

Britannica defines it this way:

Notice the bolded statement. This is what you willfully deny when you demand that God is not the cause of all things.

 

Let me put it to you this way. Bagdad, Bagdad! How many times would we have allowed your children and children's children to partake of your ancient culture had you allowed us to inspect those weapons of yours- but you would NOT!

A reference to children refers to the future.

Jerusalem, how many times would I settled the matter with you and continued to be with future generations! How MANY times would I have turned away my wrath and not turned from you and your children to the Gentiles! But you would not! By your past and continual national stubbornness you have forfeited my protective hand on your children (future generations).

Remember, if this is talking about individual salvation of souls then it is meaningless because Jesus will save nearly a quarter of the population of Jerusalem WITHIN THE YEAR!!

No, Jerusalem refers to national Israel and her being forsaken for the Gentile nations as we all agree happened within DAYS of Jesus speaking those words.

 

No. You are wrong. But I can not say it any clearer.

Why wouldn't Jesus just say, "How many times would I have gathered YOU?"

 

No. Why did he SAY "your children" rather than YOU?

 

How many times would I gathered Jerusalem as a nation under my wings but she would not- even if you are right, which you are not, but even if you are it is STILL national not soteriological.

 

Yess, their stubbornness in the past and up to the present which is going to cost their future generations nationally- greatly.

 

God can be willing that something that he does not like exist for the time being for the greater good.

I do this in raising my son. He, I think, is touched with ADD. He has a hard time focusing.

To help him to see his problem and work on it I give him assignments that I know he cannot yet do in a certain amount of time. I wish that he could. I am not happy that he can't. I tell him, if you get this done in twenty minutes I will not make you do the next sheet. I actually want him to do the next sheet because he needs the practice focusing.

But I'd be even happier if he could do the first sheet in twenty minutes. But I know he can't.

It is my ultimate will that he do the second sheet. But I WOULD let him do only the first if he WOULD but focus hard and get it done.

If I can will things that way- certainly Almighty God can.

 

Remember that nations are made up of individuals (something Calvinists are quick to remember when discussingRomans 9). At lease ONE INDIVIDUAL within that nation had to be unwilling for the nation as a whole to be unwilling, right? Surely you are not suggesting that the nation was unwilling while the individuals who made up that nation where, are you?

The fact of the matter is that God continually expresses his desire for obedience, faith and worship.

1. He express frustration when people choose to disobey, which makes little sense in a system where he is the one who must make them obey.

2. He expresses disappointment and even rebukes those with little or no faith, yet that makes no sense in a system where the faith is supplied effectually by Him. Why rebuke man and not God for giving them too little faith?

3. He SEEKS those who worship him, which make no sense in a system where he makes people worship him. Why have the rocks crying out as a back up plan in a system where the people are virtually just rocks being made to worship already?

 

I didn't see the Pastor's question answered and I think it merits a response with regard to our discussion.

Luke, you seem to be arguing that it is impossible for God to have created beings with libertarian freedom (or as I put it earlier, "the ability to make first cause choices.") But aren't you just begging the question?

How can anyone have the audacity to presume what God is not capable of doing simply because it doesn't fit your man made logical constructs, the very construct that is up for debate?

And please don't give me the "its not biblical" line. There are PLENTY of passages that speak of God's relenting, changing his mind, reacting to man's choices and responding within time and space. Dismiss them all as anthropomorphic all you want but it doesn't change the fact that the writers of scripture didn't see the need to provide such explanations, thus clearly didn't feel it necessary to qualify such revelations about God in order to prevent people from "believing God actually responds and reacts to man," so why should you?

 

You got it! :thumbs:

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs: