"given" is inclusive of "draw" in John 6

[The Biblicist]

And this bogus argument that Calvinism gives that God commands men to do what they are unable to do is pure rubbish. This argument is only true if you ASSUME Calvinism is correct. If you realize Calvinism is a lie, then you realize men are able to respond to God.

Let us put it to the test. Have you attained being "perfect EVEN AS your Father in heaven IS perfect"?????

If you say no, you admit we are right and our arguments are not "pure rubbish" but fact.

If you say yes, then either you don't understand the command or you are claiming to be God.

How perfect "IS" God? Has he ever sinned in the past? No! Does he sin in the present? No! Will he ever sin in the future? No! Hence, to be "perfect EVEN AS God IS perfect" is to never have needed to repent because He never has, and never will commit sin. Do you measure up "EVEN AS" perfect?

 

[Winman]

If not everyone w/o exception since the ascension of Christ will hear the name of Christ, how can He draw them that never knew He existed? You've stated that those drawn are those that hear and learn are drawn. How can they be drawn by One they have not heard or learned about(John 6:45)??

Jesus said if he be raised up he will draw all men unto him. To be raised up speaks of being crucified, dying for our sins. I believe this is what draws all men to Jesus, even if they finally resist. Now, I believe you have to hear to be drawn, but it might be possible those that don't hear are drawn as well, but I am not sure how.

As I have said, I do not understand exactly how God deals with people who never hear of Christ. It is certain some do die without hearing of Christ, a baby dying in the womb could not hear of Jesus. Of course, a baby has not sinned as Romans 9:11 clearly shows. But it is certain men have lived in isolated areas and not heard the gospel.

The scriptures do show that God deals with people according to knowledge.

Luk 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

The servant that "knew not" his lord's will is punished with less stripes. This seems at odds with Calvinism, if God did not desire to save these persons, and gets glory from punishing them, why would he punish them less?

I believe the scriptures when they say there is no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved, but perhaps God judges those that do not hear his name a little differently, like OT saints. Rahab the harlot did not hear of Jesus that I know of, but she recognized the God of the Jews was the true God and believed in him. This was enough for her to be saved. So perhaps God judges these men by whatever revelation they receive.

But I tell you what, I still believe God loves all men and desires that all men be saved. I will never believe Calvinism for this reason alone.

 

[Winman]

Let us put it to the test. Have you attained being "perfect EVEN AS your Father in heaven IS perfect"?????

No, but that does not prove inability.

A good analogy would be baseball. Is is possible for a batter to get a hit every single time he comes to bat? YES, it is absolutely possible for him to get a hit. That said, no baseball player has ever batted 1.000 unless he only had a very few at bats.

No one HAS to lie, no one HAS to steal. We all choose to sin, but we could have always chosen otherwise.

If you say no, you admit we are right and our arguments are not "pure rubbish" but fact.

If you say yes, then either you don't understand the command or you are claiming to be God.

I love the way you claim infallibility. You are a riot.

How perfect "IS" God? Has he ever sinned in the past? No! Does he sin in the present? No! Will he ever sin in the future? No! Hence, to be "perfect EVEN AS God IS perfect" is to never have needed to repent because He never has, and never will commit sin. Do you measure up "EVEN AS" perfect?

Of course God is perfect, and he is the standard. That is why when the scriptures say there is none good, it is not saying man is 100% evil, it is saying that man has "come short" of the glory of God. Man can do good, but no man has ever done 100% good except Jesus.

The very term "come short" shows man is ABLE to do good. It is likened to an arrow shot at a target. The arrow travels some distance toward the target, but it comes short of hitting the mark. But it did travel some distance, showing man can do some good.

Total inability is absolutely false, it is shown from Cain forward, God implied Cain could do "well" and said he would be accepted if he did so. This statement is nonsensical in Calvinism. In Calvinism Cain was not elect, God had no intention of regenerating him, he could not do well, and God had already decided in eternity past that he would never be accepted. So God's statement to Cain is nonsensical if Calvinism is true.

 

[The Biblicist]

No, but that does not prove inability.

It proves inability to be perfect and thus proves inability to obey this command.

A good analogy would be baseball. Is is possible for a batter to get a hit every single time he comes to bat? YES, it is absolutely possible for him to get a hit. That said, no baseball player has ever batted 1.000 unless he only had a very few at bats.

You are confusing an action with a condition. Men are sinners by nature and that is why they are sinners by choice and by actions. God is righteous by nature and that is why he is morally perfect or without ability to sin or don't you remember scritpure which says that God CANNOT lie????

No one HAS to lie

Every man IS a sinner by nature and that is why they choose to sin and thus become a sinner by choice.

Every man IS a liar and that is why they lie, just as every man IS a theif and that is why they steal.

I love the way you claim infallibility. You are a riot.

Presenting a dillemma is not claiming infallibility.

Of course God is perfect, and he is the standard. That is why when the scriptures say there is none good, it is not saying man is 100% evil, it is saying that man has "come short" of the glory of God. Man can do good, but no man has ever done 100% good except Jesus.

Do you know the difference between "is" and "do"? The first describes a CONDITION or STATE OF BEING while the latter describes an ACTION. God "IS" perfect, meaning his NATURE is sinless and therefore can DO no sin. Man IS not good, meaning his nature is SINFUL and therefore can DO no good.

The heart of man IS wicked which means by NATURE it is sinful. This is what Jesus means when he says if the tree is bad (nature) so are the fruits (actions). Hence, the tree must BE good (nature) before it can produce good fruits (do good actions).

The very term "come short" shows man is ABLE to do good. It is likened to an arrow shot at a target. The arrow travels some distance toward the target, but it comes short of hitting the mark. But it did travel some distance, showing man can do some good.

No, it means regardless of how far the arrow is shot or where it is shot it ALWAYS MISSES THE MARK and it is the mark that defines "good."

 

[convicted1]

Nevertheless, eventually they trusted God and came to him. There is no record that God zapped them or regenerated them. They trusted God of their own free will and were forgiven, God making coats to represent the righteousness imputed them.

They came to Him and trusted Him of their own free will? Here's the account:

Genesis 3:8-11

8 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.

9 And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

That doesn't look one iota like free will to me. They fled like scared rabbits when they heard God's voice and hid. When God sought them out, Adam then spoke, and not before. It's like the dad who's looking for his child after he did something really bad. When he finally calls him sternly enough, he'll come out, and not before. When dad spoke sternly to me, I did whatever it was, but it wasn't due to my free will, let it be known. That was what happened here in the Garden.

Genesis 3:21-24

21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Right before He drove them out of the Garden, He clothed them with the coat of skins, a sacrifice for their sins. They could have eaten of the Tree of Life after this, but God shoved them out of there.

But they didn't come to God after they sinned, of their own free will. God hunted them down.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Either we have a complete contradiction between scriptures if your inference is correct

We don't have a contradiction.....you seem to miss my implication entirely.
Two things are true:
1.) God gives people a "new heart"
2.) Man is responsible (and able) to change his "heart" (that meaning his will and intent) and either incline it towards God or not.

The difference is:
I am not attempting to prove as much when I post "MY" Scriptures vs. "Your" Scriptures.

or we have God demanding from man what only God can do,

No. I don't think God is demanding that at all. I don't see a "change of heart" to equate to total regeneration as you do.

1. Scriptures deny it is possible for man to remove his transgressions and thus impossible for man to cleanse his own heart and spirit from sin.

Those verses aren't suggesting man cleanse himself from sin...
They are simply there to demonstrate that man has some measure of control on where he sets his intent.

2. Scriptures deny it is possible for man to produce a new heart and spirit as that is a creative act that only God can do.

Those verses aren't there to suggest that.
I am not attempting to prove with them as much as Calvinists are attempting to prove when they post verses. like Eze. 11:19.

Those verses are there only to demonstrate that Calvinists are trying to put too much stock into Eze. 11:19.

Calvinist do not see any conflict with these statements

I know.

This an individual commandment. This does not prove or disprove Calvinism

The purpose isn't to disprove Calvinism....
It's to demonstrate that Ezekiel 11:19 DOESN'T prove it EITHER!

How do you guys miss that?

This has nothing to do with personal salvation but with the direction which God had told them to travel.

Yes, I know it doesn't.

You need to read the context better. He is saying IN CONTEXT that they in rebellion against God and are acting soverignly, thus replacing the heart of God with their own heart as though they are God.

No, I already understand the context...
Man can also incline his heart towards evil.
The simple point is that man has some measure of control in which direction he inclines his heart...
EITHER towards evil OR towards Good.

This is man's duty but it does not say anything about his ability to perform this duty.

That is an argument from silence. Generally, commands from anyone (God or other-wise) inherently imply some capacity to obey that command. Calvies insist there are literally Gazillions of these meaningless commands God has no intention of being obeyed.
A simpler explanation, is that God isn't commanding men to save themselves or regenerate themselves...but to simply turn towards God.
That's the entire point.

 

[convicted1]

***cracking knuckles sound***

This is probably gonna hurt, and give me writer's...errrr....typer's cramps...LOL

Hi Willis: I'll humor you :wavey:

Oh goodie goodie...LOL

This is true.

This is also true.
Those are not contradictory statements.

Wonderful!!

If to "draw" means to irresistably compel then it couldn't.

Well, the greek word used for "draw" was also used as to "drag".

But your loyal opposition doesn't believe it does. Your loyal opposition believes that the serpent Jesus refers to was there to draw all of Israel....and yet, many still died.
Num 21:8
And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.

Yet, not all of Israel is Israel. It was the remnant that was counted for the seed, the seed which would receive that promise. Without that very small remnant, this world would be like Sodom and Gomorah.

Sure it can, you are assuming that Biblicist's 95,000,000,000 theses about "draw" are correct. We don't. We don't believe that the Scriptures teach that all who are "drawn" Ultimately come, only that it is a necessary condition.

The word used for "draw" wasn't one where you could resist that drawing. When God gets a hook in you, you're coming.

This is not unique to Calvinism.

Good.

It is needful WHY exactly??
Because everything you will list will be an explanation about why it can do absolutely nothing for them, and accomplishes absolutely nothing....see here:

We have no clue who the sheep and goats are. We are to preach the gospel to every creature and they that believe and are baptized are saved, they which believe not, shall be damned. We proclaim the gospel to everyone so that the sheep will hear it. God has chosen the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. The goats, when they hear, want nothing to do with, cementing there fate in the lake of fire. They will stand before Him w/o any excuses. Jesus told the Pharisees, Saducees, other Israelites that if He had not spoken to them, they would have an excuse(me paraphrasing here), but since they heard and did not believe, they had no cloak for their sin. The gospel either brings conviction or condemnation.

Listen to the Calvinist double-speak here Willis. You are considering the "gospel" as synonymous with the "call" and your entire point is that God doesn't "draw" or "call" the goats at all. So then, why do you say this?

The call goes via the gospel. God quickens His sheep so that they can hear it, so they will come to Him, they will rejoice when they hear it, iow.

Given the point of your post, no it really isn't. Remember your beginning paragraph?
Originally Posted by convicted1
The biggest misconception about the gospel, imo, is the target being aimed at
Which is it?

The gospel is to go throughout the whole world, yet it only affects the sheep positively. The goats want nothing to do with it.

Rejecting WHAT WILLIS.....WHAT???

YOU NEVER OFFERED THEM ANYTHING!!! AND neither has CHRIST!!!

Listen, we offer the gospel, proclaim the gospel, to all who are within the range of our voice. We are not privy to who the sheep are. I preach to everyone like they're ready to fall out with sin. I preach the gospel in a way that I treat everyone as if their ready to run and grab the Scapegoat as He passes by. I make no distinctions, whatsoever. I have no clue who are sheep and who are goats. God knows, I don't.

The "gospel" in your schema is this, Willis:
It is nothing more than saying:
"Jesus loved and died for some people, but you are a goat, so the good news or "gospel" is Christ loved and died for...a bunch of people not to include you."
That's the "gospel" in your view Willis.....So what's the point of sharing it with them?

Again, to say that Jesus died for every man is false. There are many people who from birth------>death, never heard of Him, never knew His name. Yet, you say that He died for them, and they went to torment? Not one person He tasted death for will ever suffer in the lake of fire. Jesus draws those the Father gave Him, and the ones the Father gave Him, He shall lose none, save the son of perdition, that the scriptures might be fulfilled.

It was already sealed....It does nothing whatsoever to seal their fate.
The gospel going to the lost accomplishes absolutely nothing whatsoever in your schema....nothing.

This is irrelevant.[/quote]

As I already stated, it calls the sheep out from the goats. The goats will stay where they are at, because they love it there.

The gospel isn't the call.....it's the good news. You are conflating the terms.

God works through the gospel. He regenerates them and then uses the gospel to bring them into the sheepfold, that has One Shepherd, the One Shepherd that will lay His life down for His sheep. The Shepherd that prays for His sheep and not the goats.

Calvinism does that to people, it makes them see words as being synonymous which in no normative Universe would ever be mistaken as being synonyms. That's been Biblicist's intention for about 70 million pages and 6 months now, convincing people that the Thesaurus should read something like this:

Draw (verb)

synonyms:
"compell", "give", "raise-up", "save", "love", "teach", "elect", "know" "pre-destinate"

antonyms:
"condemn", "damn", "pass-over", "label as goat", "hate", "not-know"

In fact, that's even the very title and purpose of this thread:
"Translate 'given' as 'draw' instead of 'given', because I need it to say that." (paraphrased)

Sometimes, it's effective, and people honestly begin to confuse and conflate otherwise simple, obvious monosyllabic words, like "all" and (in your particular case here):
"call" or "draw" with "gospel".

The gospel going out to the damned accomplishes absolutely nothing of the sort. Their fate is (and always was) sealed.

By your own logic, then...
Those lost who never actually hear don't actually have their fate "sealed" if the "gospel" is what "seals their fate" right???

Look at the words I bolded. If you'll notice, you'll see the forcefulness in them. To "compell", "raise-up", "elect", "pre-destinate" etc.

Those who never hear the gospel are without excuse. Per Psalm 19 and Romans 1, natural revelation shows that their is a Creator, therefore, they will stand before Him w/o any excuses whatsoever.

 

[Winman]

They came to Him and trusted Him of their own free will? Here's the account:

OK

That doesn't look one iota like free will to me. They fled like scared rabbits when they heard God's voice and hid. When God sought them out, Adam then spoke, and not before. It's like the dad who's looking for his child after he did something really bad. When he finally calls him sternly enough, he'll come out, and not before. When dad spoke sternly to me, I did whatever it was, but it wasn't due to my free will, let it be known. That was what happened here in the Garden.

Why wouldn't they run? What did God say was going to happen to them the day they ate the forbidden fruit? God told them they were going to die didn't he? That would certainly scare me.

Nevertheless, both Adam and Eve came of their own free will when God continued to call them. God did not have to go into the bushes, find them, and drag them out. No, he called and they came of their own free will.

You simply do not want to see free will here, but that is certainly what it shows. God did not force them or irresistibly cause them to come.

Right before He drove them out of the Garden, He clothed them with the coat of skins, a sacrifice for their sins. They could have eaten of the Tree of Life after this, but God shoved them out of there.

But they didn't come to God after they sinned, of their own free will. God hunted them down.

No, one of the penalties of eating the forbidden fruit was that they would return to the dust from which they came, and so God prevented them from eating from the tree of life.

But nowhere does it say God cursed them so they would be unable to respond and believe God's word. Calvinism does not have a single word of scripture to support Total Inability. And God did not say their children would be born unable to respond to God. This is a man made invention not found in scripture anywhere. You cannot show it, because it doesn't exist.

God didn't HUNT them down Willis, he CALLED to them. And they finally did indeed come of their own free will, he did not have to take hold of them and drag them out of the woods.

 

[Inspector Javert]

No, but that does not prove inability.
No one HAS to lie, no one HAS to steal. We all choose to sin, but we could have always chosen otherwise.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

These are good observations.
Point is, that there is no single instance when we are ever FORCED to sin because of our nature. In every single opportunity in which I chose to sin, I manifestly could have done other wise.

Truth is, man's imperfection proves too much for the Calvinist:

Because if Total Inability is true as they describe it, then it would follow that ALL men are ALWAYS as evil as they COULD BE.

But, they will deny this. Because it is obviously false.
But, if they are compelled by their nature to always sin because, as Biblicists insists on they:
IS
ARE
BE
In accordance with their teaching of Total Inability.
Then, it would follow that men can in no instance and no possible scenario ever make the right choice.

No sinner would ever return a lost wallet.
No person would ever take time to donate their blood or donate to charity.
No sinner would ever return to pay for an item the cashier failed to ring up at Wal-Mart etc...

But, obviously, they do.

 

[convicted1]

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

These are good observations.
Point is, that there is no single instance when we are ever FORCED to sin because of our nature. In every single opportunity in which I chose to sin, I manifestly could have done other wise.

Truth is, man's imperfection proves too much for the Calvinist:

Because if Total Inability is true as they describe it, then it would follow that ALL men are ALWAYS as evil as they COULD BE.

But, they will deny this. Because it is obviously false.
But, if they are compelled by their nature to always sin because, as Biblicists insists on they:
IS
ARE
BE
In accordance with their teaching of Total Inability.
Then, it would follow that men can in no instance and no possible scenario ever make the right choice.

No sinner would ever return a lost wallet.
No person would ever take time to donate their blood or donate to charity.
No sinner would ever return to pay for an item the cashier failed to ring up at Wal-Mart etc...

But, obviously, they do.

No one is saying anyone is compelled to sin. Neither side of the debate states this as an absolute. But look at our nature. Look at the lion. The lion kills his prey because he likes meat, and won't eat grass. You could give him 10,000 bales of hay and a 1 lb steak to chose from, and he'll chose the steak every time. His nature isn't bent towards eating grass. We choose to sin because our nature is bent towards sin. Our heart is deceitful, dark, hardened, etc. That is why we sin. Our nature is in accord with our nature. That's why regeneration is an absolute must before the gospel appeal becomes appealling to His sheep. He takes that stony heart out and gives a heart of flesh. The stony heart can not receive the engrafting word, even to the saving of the soul, because it has no place for it. However, after God gives them the new heart, after quickening them, that new heart can, and will receive that engrafted word, because it has a place for it. It can take it on, and then others come along and water it, yet, God makes it grow...gives the increase.

God changes the nature, and thusly, changes the will, too...

 

[Winman]

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

These are good observations.
Point is, that there is no single instance when we are ever FORCED to sin because of our nature. In every single opportunity in which I chose to sin, I manifestly could have done other wise.

Truth is, man's imperfection proves too much for the Calvinist:

Because if Total Inability is true as they describe it, then it would follow that ALL men are ALWAYS as evil as they COULD BE.

But, they will deny this. Because it is obviously false.
But, if they are compelled by their nature to always sin because, as Biblicists insists on they:
IS
ARE
BE
In accordance with their teaching of Total Inability.
Then, it would follow that men can in no instance and no possible scenario ever make the right choice.

No sinner would ever return a lost wallet.
No person would ever take time to donate their blood or donate to charity.
No sinner would ever return to pay for an item the cashier failed to ring up at Wal-Mart etc...

But, obviously, they do.

Exactly, we are slaves or servants to sin in the respect that the moment we sin we are "sold under sin". We belong to sin just like a slave in the ancient markets. This does not mean we are compelled to always sin, a slave can disobey his master, a slave can run away from his master. But legally he still belonged to the master and could be hunted down by him and returned to him. And the wage of sin is death. Whether you did good or bad, your wage was death.

No one is compelled to sin at any time. If you find a wallet full of money, you would probably be tempted to keep the money, but you could always contact the owner and return it. If you were compelled to sin, you MUST keep the money.

If we were compelled to sin as Calvinism teaches, we would ALWAYS be the very worst we could possibly be. They will deny this, but it is logically consistent and must be true. If you must sin, you must always sin the worst sin you can sin. Of course this is obviously not true, which refutes the Calvinist view.

Calvinists simply move the goal posts when reality refutes them.

 

[Winman]

No one is saying anyone is compelled to sin. Neither side of the debate states this as an absolute. But look at our nature. Look at the lion. The lion kills his prey because he likes meat, and won't eat grass. You could give him 10,000 bales of hay and a 1 lb steak to chose from, and he'll chose the steak every time. His nature isn't bent towards eating grass. We choose to sin because our nature is bent towards sin. Our heart is deceitful, dark, hardened, etc. That is why we sin. Our nature is in accord with our nature. That's why regeneration is an absolute must before the gospel appeal becomes appealling to His sheep. He takes that stony heart out and gives a heart of flesh. The stony heart can not receive the engrafting word, even to the saving of the soul, because it has no place for it. However, after God gives them the new heart, after quickening them, that new heart can, and will receive that engrafted word, because it has a place for it. It can take it on, and then others come along and water it, yet, God makes it grow...gives the increase.

God changes the nature, and thusly, changes the will, too...

Baloney, Calvinism indeed teaches a person is compelled to sin. In your view, man MUST reject the gospel. He cannot be interested in it, he cannot listen to it, he cannot consider it or understand it, he cannot believe it. He is absolutely COMPELLED by his nature to reject it.

But Hebrews 6 shows men can listen to the gospel and be enlightened by it, they can taste of the word of God and the world to come, they can be brought to the point of repentance, and yet turn away in unbelief.

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

These verses can only be interpreted two ways, and both refute Calvinism. Either this passage shows a man can be saved and lose salvation, which refutes Perseverance of the Saints, or it shows man can indeed understand the gospel and be brought to the point of repentance, which refutes Total Inability.

Once again, the Calvinist must confront scripture that makes absolutely no logical sense if Calvinism is true.

The scriptures do not show men are unable to respond and turn to God as you parrot Willis. There are MANY scriptures that show a man first turns to God and receives the Spirit afterward.

Pro 1:23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.

Which is shown first Willis? turning to God, or receiving the Spirit?

You see, the Calvinist must make the ridiculous argument that a man can be regenerated without the Spirit, but Romans 8:9 refutes this. Romans 8:9 says that any man without the indwelling Spirit is "in the flesh". Yet, we are told men in the flesh can repent and believe, and if they do, they receive the Spirit.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Which comes first here Willis? Repenting and believing (because only believers were allowed to be baptized), or receiving the Holy Ghost?

Again and again the Calvinist must confront scripture which absolutely contradicts and refutes Calvinism.

 

[convicted1]

Brothers, thank you for the debate. We've went 300 miles and yet haven't moved one inch. I am bowing out now. Adios my friends and may He richly and abundantly bless you and your families.

:wavey: :love2: :flower: :wavey:

 

[Winman]

Brothers, thank you for the debate. We've went 300 miles and yet haven't moved one inch. I am bowing out now. Adios my friends and may He richly and abundantly bless you and your families.

:wavey: :love2: :flower: :wavey:

You are bowing out because you have been presented arguments that are difficult for you to answer.

 

[Inspector Javert]

No one is saying anyone is compelled to sin. Neither side of the debate states this as an absolute. But look at our nature. Look at the lion. The lion kills his prey because he likes meat, and won't eat grass. You could give him 10,000 bales of hay and a 1 lb steak to chose from, and he'll chose the steak every time. His nature isn't bent towards eating grass. We choose to sin because our nature is bent towards sin. Our heart is deceitful, dark, hardened, etc. That is why we sin.......
God changes the nature, and thusly, changes the will, too...

Willis, your analogy, again, proves too much for you.
If the Lion's nature is the same as our nature, then when offered the steak, (in this instance, sin) than, as I said:

We would ALWAYS SIN, EVERY TIME.
But, we do not.

Your analogy demonstrates the point I am making that Total Inability proves too much for Calvinism.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Brothers, thank you for the debate. We've went 300 miles and yet haven't moved one inch. I am bowing out now. Adios my friends and may He richly and abundantly bless you and your families.

God bless you too Willis! Have a GREAT DAY :love2: :thumbsup::flower:

 

[Inspector Javert]

You are bowing out because you have been presented arguments that are difficult for you to answer.

Winman, try again....:1_grouphug:

 

[The Biblicist]

Willis, your analogy, again, proves too much for you.
If the Lion's nature is the same as our nature, then when offered the steak, (in this instance, sin) than, as I said:

We would ALWAYS SIN, EVERY TIME.
But, we do not.

Your analogy demonstrates the point I am making that Total Inability proves too much for Calvinism.

The key is the word "nature". The actions of the lion are products of his "nature" not vice versa.

What you fella's don't recognize that man is a sinner by "nature" and therefore all of his actions are sinful in the sight of God and that is why he "IS" not good nor can he "DO" good. Jesus makes this clear in the analogy of the good and evil tree. If the tree IS good then the fruits (products) are good but if the tree IS evil so are its fruits Produces. In order for the products to be good, the tree must FIRST be made "good" by nature.

In regard to fallen man, his heart IS wicked and deceitful above all things and that is why all that come forth from such a heart are evil - "thoughts" and actions.

The lion IS by nature a meat eater while the cow by nature is a herb eater and their desires are a product of their nature. Of course all analogies break down at some point but the primary points are clear and easy to see for anyone who can see.

 

[The Biblicist]

Baloney, Calvinism indeed teaches a person is compelled to sin.

The fallen man IS a sinner by nature and that is why he sins by choice and by actions. He IS a sinner by nature because his heart IS wicked by MOTIVE and deceitful above all things. There is but one righteous motive acceptable in God's sight and that is all that one chooses to think, say and do should be for the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31) and all fallen men "come short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23).

So it is not a matter of being "compelled to sin" as though you ARE not a sinner and sin is come action that needs compulsion to make you a sinner. But rather you choose to sin and you do sin because you ARE a sinner by nature.

Just as in the analogy Jesus gives of the good and evil tree. The products of the tree are determined by its nature. If the tree IS evil then the products are evil. If the tree IS good then the products are good. Fallen man at the root of his being -his heart - is evil by nature and therefore all the products that come forth from that heart are evil. Jesus says "FIRST make the tree good" and only then will the products be good. Likewise, marvel not that I say unto thee "Ye must be born again."

But Hebrews 6 shows men can listen to the gospel and be enlightened by it, they can taste of the word of God and the world to come, they can be brought to the point of repentance, and yet turn away in unbelief.

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

These verses can only be interpreted two ways, and both refute Calvinism. Either this passage shows a man can be saved and lose salvation, which refutes Perseverance of the Saints, or it shows man can indeed understand the gospel and be brought to the point of repentance, which refutes Total Inability.

No, there is a third and more contextual based interpretation. In context, he is urging those in whom the foundations have been laid to "go on to perfection" (Heb. 6:3). This same Greek term translated "perfection" has just been translated "full age" in Hebrews 5:14 and in the context this whole exhortation is about GROWING UP and being MATURE.

In verses 4-8 he considers the only hypothetical reason a true child of God could not go on to maturity and that is "if" (v. 6) they could fall away from salvation.

However, he denies this is possible for several reasons:

1. It would be impossible to renew them to a state of repentance

2. It would requires the recrucifixion of Christ as the failure would be Christ's not their's as He is the one entrusted to keep them (Jn. 6:38-39).

3. There are only two kinds of soils with only two consequences (vv. 7-8). Either you are a soil that has never been tilled and the end is destruction (lost man) or you are a soil that has been tilled and the end is harvest (saved) and so there is no third type which jumps back and forth from one state to another state.

4. There are things that accompany salvation that make this impossible to occur for saved people - v. 9

5. There are fruits evident in the lives of those he writes to which demonstrate they are of the latter soil which shall be harvested - vv. 10-11

6. There are the immutable promises of God that make this impossible

7. There is are forerunner or representative which completely satisfied full justice in our behalf and has been accepted by God into the holy of holies which makes this impossible.

Hence, Hebrews 6:3-14 is a defense of eternal security and a complete denial of the doctrine of apostasy from true salvation.

The scriptures do not show men are unable to respond and turn to God as you parrot Willis. There are MANY scriptures that show a man first turns to God and receives the Spirit afterward.

Pro 1:23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.

This text does not say the Spirit has worked IN them but only shows that their rebellion is without excuse and they "turn...at my reproof" instead of repent because the EXTERNAL call does not turn anyone or save anyone but it does render all without excuse (2 Cor. 1:14-15).

You see, the Calvinist must make the ridiculous argument that a man can be regenerated without the Spirit,

Calvinist make no such argument but argue the very reverse - Jn. 1:13; 3:6

Yet, we are told men in the flesh can repent and believe, and if they do, they receive the Spirit.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

This text says no such thing. Nowhere in this text does it say men "can" repent. This text uses the imperative mode and commands them to repent. The reception of the Spirit here is not regeneration or the indwelling presence of the Spirit but the gifts of the Spirit which come after having been saved and water baptized or the gifts listed in the very next verses (vv. 39-40).

In addition the definite article is missing before the words "holy Spirit" in the Greek text which always refers to the gifts/fruits or products of the Spirit rather than his person. The very same thing is seen in Acts 8:14-17 where the Samaritans had already been saved and baptized and yet the Spirit had not "come upon them" in the sense of spiritual gifts. When Simon saw that through the laying on of apostolic hands the gifts of the Spirit were communciated to believers he said:


18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

Paul told the born again Spirit indwelt believers in the Roman congregations that when he came he would lay his hands upon them and impart such spiritual gifts (Rom. 1:11) because no such sign gifts are found in the list of gifts they had (Rom. 12:6-13).

So you are confusing the sign gifts of the Spirit with the indwelling presence of the Spirit.

 

[Luke2427]

Baloney, Calvinism indeed teaches a person is compelled to sin. In your view, man MUST reject the gospel. He cannot be interested in it, he cannot listen to it, he cannot consider it or understand it, he cannot believe it. He is absolutely COMPELLED by his nature to reject it.

But Hebrews 6 shows men can listen to the gospel and be enlightened by it, they can taste of the word of God and the world to come, they can be brought to the point of repentance, and yet turn away in unbelief.

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

These verses can only be interpreted two ways, and both refute Calvinism. Either this passage shows a man can be saved and lose salvation, which refutes Perseverance of the Saints, or it shows man can indeed understand the gospel and be brought to the point of repentance, which refutes Total Inability.

Once again, the Calvinist must confront scripture that makes absolutely no logical sense if Calvinism is true.

The scriptures do not show men are unable to respond and turn to God as you parrot Willis. There are MANY scriptures that show a man first turns to God and receives the Spirit afterward.

Pro 1:23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.

Which is shown first Willis? turning to God, or receiving the Spirit?

You see, the Calvinist must make the ridiculous argument that a man can be regenerated without the Spirit, but Romans 8:9 refutes this. Romans 8:9 says that any man without the indwelling Spirit is "in the flesh". Yet, we are told men in the flesh can repent and believe, and if they do, they receive the Spirit.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Which comes first here Willis? Repenting and believing (because only believers were allowed to be baptized), or receiving the Holy Ghost?

Again and again the Calvinist must confront scripture which absolutely contradicts and refutes Calvinism.

The point is that God does not force men to sin against their wills. He simply does not STOP them from sinning in accordance with their wills.

As to your statement about Total Inability-

You once again don't know what you are talking about. This is your Achilles Heel in these debates. You have NEVER understood Calvinism. I don't know if you are simply invincibly ignorant or impossibly blind, but you don't understand what you constantly attack.

You are like the folks in Texas a hundred years ago who erroneously thought that giant gar fish were eating children. They dropped electrical lines in bodies of water and tried to wipe out the fish.

Later on when educated people looked into the problem they discovered that the backwards rednecks killing the fish were wrong. Gar fish cannot eat children- they are not physically ABLE.

You are attacking something that you think is a certain way and you are wrong- and yes, I do think it is because you share the dilemma of those Texas rednecks.

If you even REMOTELY understood Calvinism you would know that Calvinists believe that in their system sinners do nothing BUT resist the grace of God until the time when God stops their resistance. You would know that they are TOTALLY INCAPABLE of repenting until the moment when God enables them to repent and believe the Gospel. Total Inability means totally unable until ENABLED. That seems so OBVIOUS to most of us. I do not know why you can't get it.

You think you have this clever argument against Calvinism something like the rednecks thought they had a clever way to dispose of the man-killing gar fish in Texas.

But really, like them, your problem is that you are astoundingly ignorant. You may be somewhat tall intellectually in the land of mental midgets (IFB) but when you come on this site you are very, very short indeed- at least when it comes to these matters.