Did Jesus teach Tulip ?

[Dr. Walter]

You say man loss these attributes which means that Adam had them. Adam was perfectly created and had within him a perfect heart towards God. Adam had a disposition and motive for righteous choices. Adam had a LOVE for righteousness. (BTW, were is it written that Adam had this disposition and love for God?) Isn't this an assumption on TULIP's part?

If Adam had all of these fantastic attributes, he loved God, he loved God's law, then tell me why God had any need to predestinate Adam and all in Adam to sin against Him? Can you explain this for me?

Moreover, you are saying that even though a man (Adam) have all of these wonderful attributes that man can still disbelieve God.

The Bible clearly and explicitly states that God made man "upright" or according to the standard of righteousness (Eccles. 7:29). The Bible clearly and explicitly states that God made man "good" (Gen. 1:31). The Bible cleary and explicitly states that God made man in His Own Image (Gen. 1:26-27). However, man was made MUTABLE.

Your primary problem is that you refuse what scriptures explicitly states and choose to philosophize away the scriptures. Romans 5:12-19 and 1 Cor. 15:40-46 are very clear that all humanity was represented in and by Adam and are held accountable for that sin in and by Adam and yet you refuse to accept that - "19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners,."

The term election is never used in scriptures for damnation only for salvation and yet you characterize our position in that manner. The term "predestined" is never used in scripture as the cause of sin but rather the overruling of sin and its consequences. You are bent on making our position teach that Goid is the author/source of sin. He is not. He created all things good and he created man upright but man "sought out many inventions" - Eccl. 7:29. Predestination is God purposing to either prevent what does not ultimately glorify him or overrule it and use it for ultimate good (Psa. 96:10; Rom. 8:28).

You have no concept of the Biblical doctrine of total depravity as you repeatedly misrepresent it by making the accusation that all men are capable of doing good and so you draw the conclusion that total depravity must be false. Two things you err on. First, both Jesus and Paul flatly contradict your assumption:

"There is NONE GOOD but one and that is God" - Mt. 19:16

"There is NONE GOOD" - Rom. 3:10

You obviously do not use the term "good" in the same sense as either Jesus or Paul. Neither speak of "good" from the perspective of human observation or relative goodness by comparing one person to another person or by how man counts goodness. God looks at the heart of man, his motive behind everything he thinks and does and sees that man's heart is evil by intent and therefor everything that originates from such a heart is evil by motive. That is precisely why salvation is about giving a "NEW" heart (Ezek. 36:26-27) because the natural heart of man is incapable (Deut. 29:4).

Even when your errors are completely exposed (as in total depravity, representation in and by Adam) you simply reject the evidence and return to the very same arguments as though your presumptions are correct when they are not. So discussion with you is futile because you simply repeat what has been proven to be either false or a misrepresentation.

 

[Dr. Walter]

When God determined to create "free will" He also gave permission to the existence of sin or the alternative choice to choose righteousness. Hence, God is indirectly the author of sin in the sense He created the mechanism that allows sin to enter into His creation.

However, he also created along with "free will" that the creatures divested with such ability would be equally held accountable for their use of "free will" and made this clearly known by establishing the correct and incorrect use.

In giving sin, man's rebellion against God, permission to exist, God fully well knew what would be the consequences and predetermined that He would not allow any sin to occur that He would not ultimately overrule for good and for His glory:

Psa. 76:10 Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain.

Rom. 8:28 For we know that ALL THINGS work together for the good.....

The only other alternative was to not create "free will" in the first place as the creation of this kind of ability must necessarily permit the wrong use or it is not "free" will.

Election is God's response to "free will" gone bad in Adam and thus in all humanity as all humanity acted as one in Adam and therefore by one man's disobedience many were made sinners. Election and damnation represent different aspects that glorify God. Damnation for the abuse of free will is perfectly just and righteous. Election to salvation is purely of grace and mercy and therefore it is not he that willleth or he that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy upon whom he will and and upon whom he wills he hardeneth - or allows to continue in their rebellion against Him.

What you and I deserve according God's justice is condemnation and eternal wrath. Salvation is something that cannot be demanded or deserved but is purely a Sovereign excerise of God's grace upon whom He wills.

Moreover, salvation is something NO MAN SEEKS or WANTS because they HATE righteousness and LOVE evil. Those who do seek after God according to their own desires do so for selfish and sinful reasons. That is why there is NONE GOOD, no, not one and there is NONE THAT SEEKETH AFTER GOD, no, not one. Election is to salvation IN SPITE OF this condition - that is why it is all of grace. Nothing prevents man from salvation but his own FREE CHOICE to love darkness and hate the light and nothing saves any man but God's grace in spite of this condition.

God makes the difference in the preaching of the gospel between the non-elect and elect (1 Thes. 1:4-5; Acts 13:48; 2 Cor. 4:6). God is perfectly just in either condeming or saving fallen mankind according to His own will (Eph. 1:4-13). God is perfectly just in allowing the non-elect to freely continue in their love for sin and hatred of the light. God's love for the whole world is seen in making a provision for sin when justice did not compell this and staying his wrath and calling all men to repentance and faith when justice does not compell him to do so. It is their OWN hatred for the light that damns them and God is not accountable to any sinner to change their will in this regard. Their own free will damned them from the beginning and it is free will that continues to damn them. In regard to the elect it is "God that worketh in you BOTH TO WILL AND TO DF HIS GOOD PLEASURE" and that is the difference between justice and grace.

God working in his elect both to will and to do of His good pleasure is through the new man that always DESIRES that end but is unable (Rom. 7:14-25). God merely enables that desire by the power of the indwelling Spirit of God (Rom. 8:1-25). Hence, there is no EXTERNAL coercion by God upon the elect. They freely choose to do it but in the final analysis if they are able to do it, it is because it is God that WORKETH IN THEM both to do what they are willing to do but can't. Salvation is granting a NEW heart and a NEW spirit or a WILLINGNESS in keeping with God's character and will.

 

[steaver]

>TULIP rejects the doctrine that God predestined people according to His foreknowledge of the choices they would make even before God created all things.

Then on what basis did God predestine?

How do we know that God only predestined people who "believe in " Jesus if his foreknowledge didn't come into play?

These are some of the questions TULIP believers have trouble answering.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

When God determined to create "free will" He also gave permission to the existence of sin or the alternative choice to choose righteousness. Hence, God is indirectly the author of sin in the sense He created the mechanism that allows sin to enter into His creation.

.................................



GE:

An explanation of sin is an excuse for sin, and sin no longer is sin.

There are two thing inexplicable to me,

Like before the Being and Nature of God I offer praises in speechless adoration from afar, I just look on on sin, and realise, Keep quiet or comit just further sin.







[/SIZE]

 

[Dr. Walter]

GE:

An explanation of sin is an excuse for sin, and sin no longer is sin.

There are two thing inexplicable to me,

Like before the Being and Nature of God I offer praises in speechless adoration from afar, I just look on on sin, and realise, Keep quiet or comit just further sin.

There is nothing wrong in defining sin, the source of sin and how God is not the author of sin. The scriptures speak clearly to these points. Perhaps you should remain "speechless"?

 

[steaver]

The Bible clearly and explicitly states that God made man "upright" or according to the standard of righteousness (Eccles. 7:29). The Bible clearly and explicitly states that God made man "good" (Gen. 1:31). The Bible cleary and explicitly states that God made man in His Own Image (Gen. 1:26-27). However, man was made MUTABLE.

Your primary problem is that you refuse what scriptures explicitly states and choose to philosophize away the scriptures. Romans 5:12-19 and 1 Cor. 15:40-46 are very clear that all humanity was represented in and by Adam and are held accountable for that sin in and by Adam and yet you refuse to accept that - "19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners,."

No need to get frustrated by my questions. I believe any doctrine must be able to withstand the scrutiny of questioning. I do not "refuse what the scriptures state", I am a Christian just like you and I believe "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

I totally agree with what the scriptures state. How they are explicitly applied is were many God fearing Christians should be able to respectfully differ.

Now, why do you think God made man MUTABLE? God is not mutable and Adam was made in the image of God.

You are bent on making our position teach that Goid is the author/source of sin. He is not. He created all things good and he created man upright but man "sought out many inventions" - Eccl. 7:29.

Here you raise two questions; 1) How is God not the Author when it is God's plan which placed a forbidden tree in Adam's reach knowing full well Adam would disobey? 2) By quoting Eccl 7:29 are you saying that Adam sought out sin? Which brings me back to the question I asked and you didn't really answer....

If Adam had all of these fantastic attributes, he loved God, he loved God's law, then tell me why God had any need to predestinate Adam and all in Adam to sin against Him? Can you explain this for me?

You have no concept of the Biblical doctrine of total depravity as you repeatedly misrepresent it by making the accusation that all men are capable of doing good and so you draw the conclusion that total depravity must be false. Two things you err on. First, both Jesus and Paul flatly contradict your assumption:

"There is NONE GOOD but one and that is God" - Mt. 19:16

"There is NONE GOOD" - Rom. 3:10

You obviously do not use the term "good" in the same sense as either Jesus or Paul. Neither speak of "good" from the perspective of human observation or relative goodness by comparing one person to another person or by how man counts goodness. God looks at the heart of man, his motive behind everything he thinks and does and sees that man's heart is evil by intent and therefor everything that originates from such a heart is evil by motive. That is precisely why salvation is about giving a "NEW" heart (Ezek. 36:26-27) because the natural heart of man is incapable (Deut. 29:4).

Even when your errors are completely exposed (as in total depravity, representation in and by Adam) you simply reject the evidence and return to the very same arguments as though your presumptions are correct when they are not. So discussion with you is futile because you simply repeat what has been proven to be either false or a misrepresentation.

My questions challenge the doctrine of Total Depravity as seen by TULIP believers. I take a doctrine and I apply it to real life situations and see if it "pans out".

You see, I could say that it is you who is doing the presuming when you say "You have no concept of the Biblical doctrine ...." JW's declare that their One Jehovah God void of a Trinity is Biblical doctrine, does this make it true just because they said it is Biblical? I seek for truth on these matters and I use questioning and real life scenarios to test such doctrines which cause controversy in the body of Christ.

It seems you do not want to discuss my questions unless I first accept TULIP as "Biblical". You have to persuade men. Be careful not to insult those who love Jesus just as you do.

May I ask you if David had his new heart that loved righteousness and loved god's law before he committed adultery and murder?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Now, why do you think God made man MUTABLE? God is not mutable and Adam was made in the image of God.

Do you believe the "image" of God involves those characteristics that make God to be God or merely a reflection of those characteristics that God shares with created beings? For example, just, rational, good, loving, etc.? The answer to your question lies here. Immutability demands eternal existence and self-sufficiency or else there is mutability.

Here you raise two questions; 1) How is God not the Author when it is God's plan which placed a forbidden tree in Adam's reach knowing full well Adam would disobey?

Simply making man responsible for the use of the power of choice and testing his use of the power of choice after clearly revealing the right and wrong use of the power of choice does not incriminate God but rather justifies him from the charge of sin.

Knowing how man will respond does not incriminate God unless you can prove that Adam was forced to make that decision by God. God knows everything you would do in your life but that does not make him responsible for what you determine to do or not to do.

2) By quoting Eccl 7:29 are you saying that Adam sought out sin? Which brings me back to the question I asked and you didn't really answer....

If Adam had all of these fantastic attributes, he loved God, he loved God's law, then tell me why God had any need to predestinate Adam and all in Adam to sin against Him? Can you explain this for me?

I have answered this in detail! You simpy refuse the answer I gave. Man was created MUTABLE and subject to change. His relationship with God was conditioned upon his proper and responsible use of free will.

The term predestinate is NEVER used in any context as the cause of sin - NEVER! Predestination is only used in contexts for the overruling of sin and working utlimate good and glory to God.

However, you keep repeating this as though you believe that TULIP teaches that predestination is the cause of sin. May I suggest that sin was only predetermined by God as the alternative but responsible choice made by creatures. God never predestinated sin apart from responsible choice by creatures.

It seems you do not want to discuss my questions unless I first accept TULIP as "Biblical". You have to persuade men. Be careful not to insult those who love Jesus just as you do.

No, that is not my frustration with your responses at all. You ignore the answers I give as though I never gave them and just repeat the same question. You are more concerned with something fitting your rationalized philosophical perspective than whether it is God's revealed will, whether or not you can understand how it works.

May I ask you if David had his new heart that loved righteousness and loved god's law before he committed adultery and murder?

He had his new heart before he committed adultery and murder. What many fail to understand is that the new birth did not remove the presence of indwelling sin (Rom. 7:14-25) nor the inability to implement the desires of the new man. There is a conflict within saved persons (Rom. 7:25) and the fleshly nature ALWAYS wins in these conflicts whenever the Christian attempts to defeat it by his own will power (Rom. 7:16-22). Saved people with new hearts still have no ability to please God although they now have the DESIRE to please God that originates with the inward man that is created in true holiness and righteousness after the law of God. The ability does not originate with the new heart but with the indwelling Spirit of God. The Christian must learn to die to self, deny self an self ability and walk by faith even as He received Christ by faith (Col. 2:6). Only then can he EXPERIENCE the victory he already has in Christ.

 

[steaver]

Simply making man responsible for the use of the power of choice and testing his use of the power of choice after clearly revealing the right and wrong use of the power of choice does not incriminate God but rather justifies him from the charge of sin.

Knowing how man will respond does not incriminate God unless you can prove that Adam was forced to make that decision by God. God knows everything you would do in your life but that does not make him responsible for what you determine to do or not to do.

Don't you dind it fascinating that God set Adam up to fail, but at the same time can hold Adam accountable for his failure?

God provided a choice, provided a tempter, knowing full well his perfectly created Adam would fail and die.

Why? Why set Adam up to fail? Can TULIP answer this question?

 

[steaver]

He had his new heart before he committed adultery and murder. What many fail to understand is that the new birth did not remove the presence of indwelling sin (Rom. 7:14-25) nor the inability to implement the desires of the new man. There is a conflict within saved persons (Rom. 7:25) and the fleshly nature ALWAYS wins in these conflicts whenever the Christian attempts to defeat it by his own will power (Rom. 7:16-22). Saved people with new hearts still have no ability to please God although they now have the DESIRE to please God that originates with the inward man that is created in true holiness and righteousness after the law of God. The ability does not originate with the new heart but with the indwelling Spirit of God. The Christian must learn to die to self, deny self an self ability and walk by faith even as He received Christ by faith (Col. 2:6). Only then can he EXPERIENCE the victory he already has in Christ.

I'm not sure I can agree with this exegesis of Romans 7 or David having his new heart which would be his rebirth. 1) David cries out for God to CREATE a clean heart within him. I believe he does this looking forward to the regeneration that would come through the Holy Spirit rebirth which did not take place until Jesus Christ was glorified (Luke 7). Also remember that the Psalms are prophetic and pointing mostly to the future ministry of Jesus Christ.

In Romans 7 I believe Paul is describing his life before his conversion/regeneration.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Don't you dind it fascinating that God set Adam up to fail, but at the same time can hold Adam accountable for his failure?

I don't believe God set up Adam to fail. That is impuning a wrong motive to God for creating Adam.

God provided a choice, provided a tempter, knowing full well his perfectly created Adam would fail and die.

He merely put the power of choice to a test and all the above components were part of that test.

Even if you denied TULIP and simply accepted that God knows all things in advance as Isaiah 46:9-11 explicitly states - you are left with the very same problem according to your approach. Knowing he would fall he proceeded.

Hence, either way God's purpose for proceeding was clearly that He would work all things eventually for good and for his glory.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I'm not sure I can agree with this exegesis of Romans 7 or David having his new heart which would be his rebirth. 1) David cries out for God to CREATE a clean heart within him. I believe he does this looking forward to the regeneration that would come through the Holy Spirit rebirth which did not take place until Jesus Christ was glorified (Luke 7). Also remember that the Psalms are prophetic and pointing mostly to the future ministry of Jesus Christ.

In Romans 7 I believe Paul is describing his life before his conversion/regeneration.

I beleive you are entirely mistaken in your interpretation of Romans 7:14-25 (although you are correct in that assessment in Romans 7:6-13). Galatians 5:16-17 is speaking directly to Christians and says exactly the same thing.

I also beleive that your interpretation of David is wrong! There are too many other biblical factors that you are simply ignoring in order to make the assumption you have made. I do not believe the baptism in the Spirit on the day of Pentecost had anything to do with individual salvation in any sense whatsoever. Nor did the words of Christ concerning the coming of the Holy Spirit have anything to do with individuals per se but rather with a new institution - the house of God" that was an assembly of individuals.

It is clear that your overall theology prevents you from dealing with the real facts of scripture. For example, the contrast between those "in the flesh" versus those "in the Spirit" in Romans 8:8-9. That cannot possibly be limited to merely post-pentecostal saints. Paul's soteriology is taken out of the Old Testament scriptures including the gospel he preached and his teaching on the sinful condition of man. There are just too many factors that your position simply overlooks.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I beleive you are entirely mistaken in your interpretation of Romans 7:14-25 (although you are correct in that assessment in Romans 7:6-13). Galatians 5:16-17 is speaking directly to Christians and says exactly the same thing.

I also beleive that your interpretation of David is wrong! There are too many other biblical factors that you are simply ignoring in order to make the assumption you have made. I do not believe the baptism in the Spirit on the day of Pentecost had anything to do with individual salvation in any sense whatsoever. Nor did the words of Christ concerning the coming of the Holy Spirit have anything to do with individuals per se but rather with a new institution - the house of God" that was an assembly of individuals.

It is clear that your overall theology prevents you from dealing with the real facts of scripture. For example, the contrast between those "in the flesh" versus those "in the Spirit" in Romans 8:8-9. That cannot possibly be limited to merely post-pentecostal saints. Paul's soteriology is taken out of the Old Testament scriptures including the gospel he preached and his teaching on the sinful condition of man. There are just too many factors that your position simply overlooks.

I personally believe that you or any othe rBible student will be deficient in your basic understanding of salvation as long as you interpret and apply Romans 7:14-25 to lost or unregnerate people.

1. The tense changes in verse 14 to a present tense whereas verses 6-13 Paul uses past tense verbs.

2. No lost person has an inward man that delights in the law of God but is at enmity with God and is NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF GOD and NEITHER INDEED CAN BE - Rom. 8:7

3. Paul identifes three apsects of his human nature "I" "my flesh" and "inward man." Indwelling sin occupies and controls "my flesh". "I" delight in the law of God. The "inward man" delights in the law of God. The "I" refers to his conscious self, especially the exericse of his "will."

4. Paul's argument in chapter seven is very simple. In Christ he is "dead to the law" (vv. 1-5). The law has no more legal authority over his person because Christ satisfied all the laws requirements against him. In his lost condition he was dead under the law, as the law had no power to conform him to righteousnesss but only condemn him to death (vv. 6-13). In his saved condition the law still has no power to enable him to conform to its standard and neither does his will have such power (vv. 14-25). That power does not come from the law or his own will power but from the indwelling Spirit of God (Rom. 8:1-27). That power must be engaged through faith in exactly the same way the saint received Jesus Christ (Col. 2:6).

Until you learn these simple lessons in regard to the law, there can be no real victory over sin in your life.

 

[steaver]

I don't believe God set up Adam to fail. That is impuning a wrong motive to God for creating Adam.

This is a theological error, for the very fact of the matter stares us in the face.

We are living in God's plan and if it is God's plan then it is a perfect plan. TULIP believers and Arminian believers alike cannot reconcile the plain truth which is that God is the Cause of Adam's failure, even though Adam has culpability. You can see all of the facts plainly, yet a traditional theology prevents you from connecting that vital dot.

He merely put the power of choice to a test and all the above components were part of that test.

Think about this, was it really a "test"? Or was it a plan with intentional purpose?

Adam MUST fail that God/Jesus Christ may be glorified! It is a perfect plan, nothing unjust about it, for the One who has implemented the plan, the Curse, has also implemented the Cure.

I do not see this view as "impuning a wrong motive to God for creating Adam". God is God and I believe He is Holy, Just and His plan is Perfect.

TULIP prevents one from seeing the truth of this matter, which is God is the Cause of Adam's sin. TULIP cannot see past Adam's culpability.

Think about it, was it a test, or is it a plan? There is a difference. If it were a test then there must have been a chance for a different outcome, but if a plan, then it is written and the word cannot be broken.

TULIP says it believes in Divine Providence. Does it really? I say only to a point. TULIP cannot see the Providence of God in sin.

If anyone would like a fantastic read, get the book "Spectacular Sins" by John Piper. Yes, I know John is a TULIP believer. It's a great read!

 

[steaver]

I personally believe that you or any othe rBible student will be deficient in your basic understanding of salvation as long as you interpret and apply Romans 7:14-25 to lost or unregnerate people.

I understand this..."by grace ye have been saved through faith and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast". Is this basic?

Until you learn these simple lessons in regard to the law, there can be no real victory over sin in your life.

I have victories and I have failures. I don't believe this particular doctrinal point of view will effect this one way or the other. Are you saying that you do not fail anymore since you believe this differently than I?

 

[Dr. Walter]

This is a theological error, for the very fact of the matter stares us in the face.

We are living in God's plan and if it is God's plan then it is a perfect plan. TULIP believers and Arminian believers alike cannot reconcile the plain truth which is that God is the Cause of Adam's failure, even though Adam has culpability. You can see all of the facts plainly, yet a traditional theology prevents you from connecting that vital dot.



Think about this, was it really a "test"? Or was it a plan with intentional purpose?

Adam MUST fail that God/Jesus Christ may be glorified! It is a perfect plan, nothing unjust about it, for the One who has implemented the plan, the Curse, has also implemented the Cure.

I do not see this view as "impuning a wrong motive to God for creating Adam". God is God and I believe He is Holy, Just and His plan is Perfect.

TULIP prevents one from seeing the truth of this matter, which is God is the Cause of Adam's sin. TULIP cannot see past Adam's culpability.

Think about it, was it a test, or is it a plan? There is a difference. If it were a test then there must have been a chance for a different outcome, but if a plan, then it is written and the word cannot be broken.

TULIP says it believes in Divine Providence. Does it really? I say only to a point. TULIP cannot see the Providence of God in sin.

If anyone would like a fantastic read, get the book "Spectacular Sins" by John Piper. Yes, I know John is a TULIP believer. It's a great read!

In spite of Biblical evidence to the contrary, you will continue to beleive what you want to believe, regardless of contrary clear and explicit Biblical evidence.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I don't believe

Regardless of the grammatical and contextual evidence you will continue to believe whatever you want to believe.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Ok lets break it down.
Total Depravity: If you are saying by Total depravity that man is absolute inability... I would agree But if you hold to the Infralasparian perspective which would indicate that the fall of man was not only forseen but but positively decreed as a necessary means to the Divine end in creating Man. The manifestation of God's power in condemning as well as of His grace in saving people. I heartedly disagree and this verse is a poor one to quote It seems you read this passage emphasising the first verse to the exclusion of the second. This verse does not read every man hates God and cannot come to him. The second verse classifies people into two catagories. 1) People who do evil and 2) People who come into the light. It shows a natural order of what happens to people who behave in a certain manner. Those who do evil hide from God. Those who come into the light allow God to see their deeds. This is a poor choice of verse to support your position of total depravity.

I find I agree with the Idea of Unconditional Election however you're verse quote for John in limited attonement. is add odds with John himself who also said

he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Therefore, when in combination we can see that if the whole world were to avail itself of salvation bought by Jesus for us it would entirlely be saved. However, we and God know that the world won't entirely do so but it rejects God of its own volition. However, it doesn't stop Jesus blood from being efficacious to all who will accept him and if that happens to be the whole world then so be it. So I don't see Jesus teaching the Infralasparian view of Total Depravity, nor do I see Jesus teaching Limited attonement. In other words is blood is efficacious for all but doesn't extend to those not willing his great salvation. Whereas, in limited attonment only those few select will receive attonement and even if the whole world wanted it; it wouldn't be available to them.

 

[steaver]

I find I agree with the Idea of Unconditional Election however you're verse quote for John in limited attonement. is add odds with John himself who also said Therefore, when in combination we can see that if the whole world were to avail itself of salvation bought by Jesus for us it would entirlely be saved. However, we and God know that the world won't entirely do so but it rejects God of its own volition. However, it doesn't stop Jesus blood from being efficacious to all who will accept him and if that happens to be the whole world then so be it. So I don't see Jesus teaching the Infralasparian view of Total Depravity, nor do I see Jesus teaching Limited attonement. In other words is blood is efficacious for all but doesn't extend to those not willing his great salvation. Whereas, in limited attonment only those few select will receive attonement and even if the whole world wanted it; it wouldn't be available to them.

Think about this Thinkingstuff; What was Adam's specific sin that severed his spirit from God's Spirit?

 

[steaver]

In spite of Biblical evidence to the contrary, you will continue to beleive what you want to believe, regardless of contrary clear and explicit Biblical evidence.

And Arminian would end a debate with a TULIP believer saying the same things. In fact, according to the few hundred Christians that I have had conversations with on this issue, only a small percentage of them were TULIP believers. And I could post a long list of theologians with long list of degrees who would say your "clear, explicit, biblical evidence" is not as you would believe it to be. So were does that leave us?

Debating TULIP makes for some good bible digging but in the end it really does not matter if it is correct or not. Good God fearing, God loving, people loving Christians have the liberty in Christ to disagree on it. Now what could be a sin is if we spend too much time on non-essential issues at the expense of the Great Commission ordered by our Lord Jesus Christ. This is why I don't spend as much time here as I once did. I like debating, but God spoke to me about the importance of managing my time towards things that edify and profit the brethern over leasurely debate about things that are not going to benefit the Kingdom of God.

Blessing on you brother. I enjoyed the back and forth! If I were a betting man I would wager that you and I would totally agree on living out the two greatest commandments given by our Lord Jesus Christ. And Jesus said if we keep these two commandments we are doing well. So God bless you and keep on pressing towards the mark! Come Lord Jesus, Come!

 

[David Lamb]

Notice two keys words Jesus used....will not. He didn't say they could not come to Him, but rather, would not. There's a world of difference in those words there, Brother David.

The Jews were cut off due to continual rebellion, and rejection of God, and the Prophets. Read Malachi and how they polluted to the altar with "polluted bread", meaning they were offering their worst instead of their best, such as their blind, halt, lame, etc. It was because of things like this, that God cut them off, and we were grafted in.

This is why they could not believe.

But in the verses I quoted, John 10.26-28, Jesus said:

26 "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 "And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand."
​

He didn't say: "You are not my sheep, because will not (or would not or could not) believe."

Not all the Jews were cut off because of their rebellion. Simeon, Anna, The Twelve (apart from Judas Iscariot), Joseph of Arimathaea, Nicodemus, and many other Jews are examples of this. So we cannot make the Saviour's words in John 10.26 mean something like: "But no Jews believe, because all Jews have been cut off."