Sabitlenmiş Tweet
bundyw
15.7K posts
bundyw
@dfziklag
aka Puddleglum, steadfast friend of Aslan / married to a Luke 10:39 woman
Knoxville, TN Katılım Eylül 2024
1.3K Takip Edilen1.3K Takipçiler
@SprinterPress If America wants respect, then open the H-1 B visas for a million Indians each year & then we will think about respecting you.
English
🇺🇲 US Secretary of State Marco Rubio arrived in Delhi and asked, "Where is everyone?" At the airport, he was only greeted by the commander of his own plane, and not a single Indian government official came to meet him.
English
@DataRepublican I disagree with you on this one. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face.
English
Word salad.
Either God knows about possible futures because they are possible (God's knowledge of those possible futures cannot be untrue), or God is simply talking about "possible futures" as a manipulation technique.
You don't have any other choices.
God does, in fact, "react to his creation" throughout the Scriptures. How many times will Israel defeat their enemies? How many times did the king hit the arrows on the ground? Which way should the shadow go on the steps? Which way did the king ask them to go?
God is also sovereign.
If your definition of "sovereign" cannot contain what the Scriptures teach, you need to change your definition rather than making God into a manipulator.
English
Of course God knows possible futures but such futures will not ever come to pass because God also is sovereign over the course of history to bring about the outcomes he plans. He make God unto one reacting to his creation and his plans subject to man’s actions. That is not the God of the Bible
English
Exactly. Does God have plans? Yes. Is everything part of God's plan? No. Can and does God use man's free will to accomplish some plans? Yes. How and why? Because He's sovereign.
Sovereign simply means to rule. That's it.
Blake Allen@BornAgainBalaky
I would argue that Human’s have free-will and not everything is part of God’s plan but He can use anything to further His plan because He is sovereign
English
This is a false dichotomy predicated on a poor understanding of "sovereignty." Injecting emotionally laden language ("victim") doesn't help your case in any way.
You are trying to work around what the Scriptures present as real and true by saying: "God doesn't really know other possible futures, he just says things to gain obedience or to make a point."
That makes God into a manipulative liar.
No, thanks.
English
@1984_nate @dfziklag God is not a victim or contingent to his knowledge. He knows with certainty what will happen because he planned it.
English
@blake_cannon10 @1984_nate Self-contradictory word salad. "God said something different might have happened, but it couldn't because God already decided what would happen."
In essence, you're calling God a liar.
No, thanks ... whatever I do with the text, I won't say that God lies.
English
God has knowledge of all contingencies yes but he does not make his plans based of them. If he did then his knowledge is contingent and not absolute. God knows what might have been or could have been but he also knows what is certain to happen. If he knows what is certain to happen then it will happen because it cannot be any other way than what he knows will happen or he did not actually know it.
English
@FrankLets78822 @Be_Like_JChrist Permanent forgiveness of sins did not, in fact, exist until post-Christ. Paul explicitly says this.
English
@Be_Like_JChrist @dfziklag If your argument is “it’s future, so it didn’t exist at all before,” then you’d have to say no one was forgiven or had faith before Christ either.
But the OT clearly shows both.
So why treat a changed heart differently?
English
Show me one regenerated man in the old testament. Just one. There are tons called righteous who followed God by choice. But show me one who was regenerated. Just one.
MartynSpeck@SpeckMartyn
@Be_Like_JChrist The better question is: Is natural man able to choose God?
English
No, I'm not arguing from "terminology." The passages in Ezekiel are clearly prophetic, and hence do not apply to David, etc. -- in fact, this passage was written long after every "OT Saint" you've pointed to even lived, so ... not certain how David is supposed to know about something Ezekiel was going to write about the end of the age long before Ezekiel ever lived.
The passage in Deuteronomy would not have been considered "regeneration" in the Tanakh, as we associate regeneration with permanent covering of sins /and/ permanent indwelling of the Spirit. Clearly neither of these existed in the Tanakh ... or they would be meaningless in the ministry of Christ.
You are trying to force post-Christ concepts into a Jewish framework.
English
@dfziklag @Be_Like_JChrist You’re arguing from terminology, not reality.
The OT may not use the word “regeneration,” but it clearly describes a changed heart (Deut 30:6, Ezek 36).
So the question isn’t “is the term there?”
It’s “is the reality there?”
English
God knowing things does not mean "they could not be any other way." If this were true, God could not have middle knowledge. There are two problems with God not having middle knowledge.
First, humans have middle knowledge ... so the claim that God does not have middle knowledge means humans have an entire class of knowledge God does not have. This is problematic.
Second, the Scriptures clearly describe God as having middle knowledge. "If this had happened something different than what you see now would have happened" kinds of statements are scattered throughout the Scriptures.
Hence ... God knows things that could have happened and did not ... and God knows things that could have been some other way.
Whether God is "surprised" or not is another matter entirely, but your argument fails at the outset because you've tied God's knowledge, will, and power together into a single "thing."
English
@1984_nate Is God ever surprised? Does he ever say I never expected that? If no then does he just know the future? And if he knows it could it be any other way ?
English
Just spent a few minutes looking for "regeneration" in the Tanakh. The only seemingly related passages are prophetic, in Ezekiel.
Regeneration in the post-Christ sense is not really a "category" in the Tanakh, other than prophecy.
It seems, then, that the correct answer is: "none."
There is no one in the Tanakh would have recognized the term "regenerated" in the sense we use that word, nor would they think they were such a thing.
English
@Be_Like_JChrist Before that, define “regenerated.”
What do you mean by it, biblically?
English
bundyw retweetledi
I was meditating this morning on why the Lord would us to pray the Lord's prayer if everything was already settled by his predestination of every move that is made on earth. He tells us to pray your kingdom come, your will be done.
Why would he do that? God is not a trickster or a game player. The kingdom of heaven is a relationship kingdom. A relationship takes two. There is no relationship in Calvinism. Our lives are futile, unless we participate in the direction of our lives and the lives of our children.
English
@quickened2him @rootcausesleuth Another interesting point here is the automatic equation of "freedom" as being "from something." This is a very modern view of freedom.
Scripturally, there is freedom from and freedom to.
Love is a freedom to, not a freedom from.
English
And I’d push back and challenge your notion (shock! 😉) that a relationship with God requires “freedom” (to which I’d ask “free from what?”). Using your terms, why is “scripted” not genuine? It’s not a prerequisite either scripturally nor logically.
This really amounts to who gets to define “real”: men… or God?
English
@samstein @AndyKimNJ You would argue Senators should be above the law? Interesting.
English
ICE pepper sprayed a US Senator today (@AndyKimNJ)
nj.com/news/2026/05/i…
English
And if you don't like any of those, I can recommend some well-researched and well-argued books proving love, by definition, must be free.
Even meticulous divine determinist believe this, as shown by the language they use to "soften" is ... "because God uses means, it's free but not free."
I would also challenge you to live your personal life believing you can rightly force others to love you. Let me know how it goes.
English
First, I've already given you an entire research paper showing this.
Second, if you don't like the line of argument in that paper ...
- Job only makes sense if love cannot be coerced.
- Ruth only makes sense if love cannot be coerced.
- I can develop a completely separate case from Esther.
- I can develop a completely separate case from David and Bathsheba.
- I can develop a completely separate case from the Mosaic Law.
- I can develop a separate case from the many offers of salvation throughout the Apostles.
- I can develop a separate case from the many offers of salvation throughout the Tanakh.
- I can develop separate cases from several of the prophets.
It's throughout all of the Scriptures--if love is not free, it is not love.
English
As for the Calvinism rejoinder above, your profile says: "Slave to Christ, Quickened by His sovereign grace"
We seem to have a widespread phenomenon where people who agree with every element of Calvinism, down to the last detail, don't want to call themselves "Calvinist" because they don't like "names" or some such.
/whatever/
I've spent a little time looking through your timeline. You're so close to Calvinism that it really doesn't matter what you call yourself.
English
I disagree. The Scriptures do not, in fact, state that “love cannot be coerced.”
Can you walk me through the specific verse(s) and how you deduce this universal claim you're making from the text?
As for the Calvinism part of your comment... I’m not a Calvinist, so I'm not going to speak for them. If you want their view, you’ll have to ask one. 🤷♂️
English
x.com/i/status/18938…
Start with the volitional rejoinder section if you want to skip the philosophical arguments.
Two other logical consequences of saying "love can be forced" are .. (1) you are removing God's freedom, and (2) you are making God directly responsible for evil (or you must accept universalism).
bundyw@dfziklag
English
Good question. Yes, it is a valid deduction from Scripture. Scripture reveals God as Truth who cannot lie and who created and sustains a coherent, non-contradictory reality (Heb 6:18; 2 Tim 2:13). Basic arithmetic such as 2+2=4 follows as a simple deduction from that revealed order. Namely, that quantities exist as God made them and contradictions are impossible.
But "love must involve libertarian freedom to be genuine" is not a valid deduction from Scripture. It's an extra-biblical assumption you're smuggling in. Until you demonstrate how your assertion is a valid deduction from Scripture, you're still begging the question.
English
@quickened2him @rootcausesleuth @JosephamillerII @DrawNear_ It /is/ a valid deduction from Scripture.
English
The Scriptures do, in fact, state that love /cannot/ be coerced. What is the opposite of coerced?
Further question: if love doesn't need to be free, why does Calvinism exert so much effort at circomlucations like "God doesn't force you to love, he changes your nature so you /must/ love." Why bother with the "softening" if there's nothing to "soften?"
English
@JosephamillerII @rootcausesleuth @DrawNear_ @dfziklag Free from what? I won’t say a love relationship “must be free” for one simple reason: it’s not scriptural.
English
@soumitrashukla9 That's funny, because I'm getting pretty tired of the sickening level of anti-American hate coming from various folks on this platform. Mostly, it seems, from folks from India calling Americans stupid, lazy, etc.
English
The amount of anti-Indian hate on this platform is truly sickening. People need to stop worrying about jobs being "stolen" and look deeper within as to why they have such rotten souls to wish the worst on others.
English
@DrFrankTurek Postmillennial effort to bring about the "Kingdom of God" through human effort to "fulfill the great commission" via political means.
English
