Whosoever Will

[OldRegular]

When confronted with the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace in Salvation those who lold the doctrines of Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, Arminianism, or Freewillism like to fall back to Scripture such as the following:

John 3:16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Revelation 22:17. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

I would appreciate those who hold the above Freewill doctrines showing how the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace in Salvation is contrary to the above passage or contradicts any other passage they use to defend their beliefs!

 

[Robert Snow]

When confronted with the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace in Salvation those who lold the doctrines of Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, Arminianism, or Freewillism like to fall back to Scripture such as the following:

John 3:16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Revelation 22:17. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

I would appreciate those who hold the above Freewill doctrines showing how the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace in Salvation is contrary to the above passage or contradicts any other passage they use to defend their beliefs!

It's simple really. Calvinist's say that man can respond, but in his sin nature he won't. Non-cals say that man can respond to the Gospel call if he chooses to believe. On side believes man doesn't have a free will and the other side does.

 

[DHK]

When confronted with the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace in Salvation those who lold the doctrines of Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, Arminianism, or Freewillism like to fall back to Scripture such as the following:

John 3:16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Revelation 22:17. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

I would appreciate those who hold the above Freewill doctrines showing how the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace in Salvation is contrary to the above passage or contradicts any other passage they use to defend their beliefs!

Are you meaning to say that these Scriptures are not in your Bible?
That's odd, I thought we used the same Bible.

 

[OldRegular]

It's simple really. Calvinist's say that man can respond, but in his sin nature he won't. Non-cals say that man can respond to the Gospel call if he chooses to believe. On side believes man doesn't have a free will and the other side does.

Snow

The request in the OP was: I would appreciate those who hold the above Freewill doctrines showing how the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace in Salvation is contrary to the above passage or contradicts any other passage they use to defend their beliefs!

You have not responded to that request!

 

[Steven2006]

I'll play:

It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost {of all.} 1 Tim 1:15

This verse doesn't state Jesus came to save just some sinners but rather anyone who is a sinner.




For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
Rom 5:6


Jesus died for the ungodly. If we are to believe that He only died for some then that would mean those that are not saved are godly rather than ungodly.


.

 

[OldRegular]

I'll play:

It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost {of all.} 1 Tim 1:15

This verse doesn't state Jesus came to save just some sinners but rather anyone who is a sinner.




For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
Rom 5:6


Jesus died for the ungodly. If we are to believe that He only died for some then that would mean those that are not saved are godly rather than ungodly.


.

Jesus Christ came to die for sinners or the ungodly. Neither Scripture you posted states that HE came to die for all the ungodly sinners.

Scripture also says of Jesus Christ:

Luke 5:32. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Does this mean there were righteous people on earth. If so it contradicts the following Scripture:

Romans 3:10. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

And we know that Scripture does not contradict itself!

Incidentally you did not respond to the request in the OP: I would appreciate those who hold the above Freewill doctrines showing how the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace in Salvation is contrary to the above passage or contradicts any other passage they use to defend their beliefs!

 

[Steven2006]

Who are "the ungodly"?

I think it is a bigger leap to say "the ungodly" really means only some of them. It doesn't say that, is says "the ungodly".

 

[OldRegular]

Who are "the ungodly"?

I think it is a bigger leap to say "the ungodly" really means only some of them. It doesn't say that, is says "the ungodly".

I was one of the ungodly, I don't know about you but I will assume you were also! And it doesn't say that HE died for all the ungodly.

 

[Steven2006]

And it doesn't say that HE died for all the ungodly.

"the ungodly" certainly implies all rather than few as you suggest.


If you read somewhere that someone was going to do something for "the Americans" or the "Germans" it would be reasonable to think any American or any German. You wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it must only mean only a select group of them.

There is nothing to indicate that "the ungodly" really means some of the ungodly.

 

[Steven2006]

People that die unsaved, were they Godly or ungodly?

 

[Rippon]

It's simple really. Calvinist's [sic]say that man can respond, but in his sin nature he won't.

It's not a matter of won't, but can't.

What Calvinist has said that a person has the ability to respond to the gospel? If anything Calvinists have taught that people have a natural inability. Spurgeon even preached a sermon on Man's Inability.

Non-cals say that man can respond to the Gospel call if he chooses to believe. On [sic]side believes man doesn't have a free will and the other side does.

So you had the natural ability to choose to believe Robert?

 

[MB]

When confronted with the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace in Salvation those who lold the doctrines of Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, Arminianism, or Freewillism like to fall back to Scripture such as the following:

John 3:16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Revelation 22:17. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

I would appreciate those who hold the above Freewill doctrines showing how the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace in Salvation is contrary to the above passage or contradicts any other passage they use to defend their beliefs!

It's simple;
Who so ever will includeds all those whom the doctrine of grace excludes. Those who this doctrine says are not elect. What's really strange about it is they themselves can't prove there own election with out proving they were only elect after their Salvation. Of course they may deny this truth.
MB

 

[Skandelon]

It's not a matter of won't, but can't.

What Calvinist has said that a person has the ability to respond to the gospel? If anything Calvinists have taught that people have a natural inability. Spurgeon even preached a sermon on Man's Inability

It is my understanding that SOME Calvinists attempt to maintain that men are free in the since that they are "doing what they desire." In other words, "they are able, but not willing."

It is the my contention that this is an insufficient explanation to maintain true freedom considering that Calvinists believe that even the desires and thoughts of men are "decreed by God."

This is an important circularity in the claim by Calvinists that humans can be considered genuinely free so long as their actions are in accordance with their desires. Given the belief that all events and actions are decreed by God, then human desire (the very thing that Calvinists claim allows human choices to be considered free) must itself also be decreed. But if so, then there is nothing outside of or beyond God's decree on which human freedom might be based. Put differently, there is no such thing as what the human really wants to do in a given situation, considered somehow apart from God's desire in the matter (i.e., God's desire as to what the human agent will desire). In the Calvinistic scheme, human desire is wholly derived from and wholly bound to the divine desire. God's decree encompasses everything, even the desires that underlie human choices.

This is a critical point, because it undercuts the plausibility of the Calvinist's argument that desire can be considered the basis for human freedom. When the Calvinists defines freedom in terms of desire (i.e., doing what one wants to do), this formulation initially appears plausible only because it tends to (subtly) evoke a sense of independence or ownership on the part of the human agent for his choices. For this reason, human desire within the Calvinistic framework forms an insufficient basis on which to establish the integrity of human freedom (and from this the legitimacy of human culpability for sin).

 

[AresMan]

It's simple;
Who so ever will includeds all those whom the doctrine of grace excludes.

No, "whosoever will" in Revelation 22:17 is an English translation of the Greek phrase ho thelwn, which means "the ones desiring/willing" (as a singular unit). The phrase says nothing about an intrinsic ability on the part of everyone. It only says that "the ones desiring/willing" should then take the water. Assuming that the phrase itself dictates that everyone has the ability to "will/desire" in this fashion is simply reading into the text.

The same goes for John 3:16. The phrase "whosoever believeth" is pas ho pisteuwn, which means "all the ones believing" (as a singular unit). It says nothing about a universal ability to believe, only that being a "one believing" is the qualifier for eternal life. Assuming that "whosoever believeth" is textual proof of a universal, intrinsic ability to believe the gospel is reading into the text.

 

[OldRegular]

"the ungodly" certainly implies all rather than few as you suggest.

Could you quote where I said "the ungodly" meant "a few"? Thanking you in advance!

 

[OldRegular]

It's simple;
Who so ever will includeds all those whom the doctrine of grace excludes.

Perhaps it is simple to you MB but I doubt that it it is to anyone else. How are the whosoever wills saved other than by grace?

Also while you explain the above please address the request made in the OP: I would appreciate those who hold the above Freewill doctrines showing how the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace in Salvation is contrary to the above passage or contradicts any other passage they use to defend their beliefs!

 

[OldRegular]

People that die unsaved, were they Godly or ungodly?

Please address the request in the OP and then perhaps I can answer the question above.

The request in the OP is: I would appreciate those who hold the above Freewill doctrines showing how the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace in Salvation is contrary to the above passage or contradicts any other passage they use to defend their beliefs!

So far no Freewillers have been willing to try to respond, they have simply tried to obfuscate the request.

 

[RAdam]

There are verses that are characteristic, meaning they characterize, or describe, the people under consideration. There are a lot of texts like this in the bible. Psalms 5 describes the wicked in detail. There are many verses in the bible that describe the children of God.

 

[Robert Snow]

So you had the natural ability to choose to believe Robert?

Yes, I did, thanks be to God!

 

[Winman]

When confronted with the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace in Salvation those who lold the doctrines of Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, Arminianism, or Freewillism like to fall back to Scripture such as the following:

John 3:16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Revelation 22:17. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

I would appreciate those who hold the above Freewill doctrines showing how the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace in Salvation is contrary to the above passage or contradicts any other passage they use to defend their beliefs!

In John 3:16, non-Cals interpret "world" to mean all of mankind. We believe God loves every single person whether they come to be saved or lost. You believe God only loves the elect.

We know God loves the un-elect because the scriptures say Jesus loved the young rich ruler who did not get saved.

Mark 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

In Rev 22:17 non-Cals believe that the call of the Spirit and the bride to "come" is an invitation to all men, whether they come to be saved or lost. You believe God only effectually calls the elect. NonCals believe that all men have the ability to choose or "take" the water of life freely, Cals/DoGs believe only the regenerated elect can choose or take the water of life.

Now I'll ask you a question, Does God love the un-elect?