Featured For the Truth Seeker

Way past his head I suppose.

 

Bump.

Steaver, my response to you a few days ago seems to have been lost in the disagreements with Van. Just would like your thoughts/response to this.

Post #79 if you want to see what I quoted from you as a refresher.

 

Note I posted this: " 2 Cor. 5:18-21 does indicate God begs the lost through His ambassadors to be reconciled with God. Yet am told I provided no help. You have got to love them.

 

The fount of disinformation errupts again

Here the implication is I indicated someone without the Spirit is a babe in Christ. But no quote will be forthcoming. The assertion is a complete fabrication, a fiction to change the subject from what I said. Paul spoke to babes in Christ as men of flesh. Thus men of flesh can understand the milk of the gospel.

Once again we have sheer nonsense. No one, meaning no one comes to Jesus unless drawn by the Father. But Calvinism rewrites the text to read "everyone drawn by the Father comes to Jesus." Another sheer fiction.

Here we have yet another logical fallacy, i.e. if fallible men, great men of God, believed in Calvinism, then to disagree means a person thinks they themselves are a greater scholar. Twaddle. Many other fallible men, great men of God, who were scholars, did not accept Calvinism.

All that the Calvinists on this forum offer in defense of Calvinism are logical fallacies, two wrongs make a right, by Dad is bigger than you dad, scripture does not mean what it says, it means the opposite.

 

Men in the flesh is NOT same as babnes in Christ, as one are saved, while others lost !

 

No one, repeat no one, repeat no one, said that babes in Christ are not saved. Calvinists often pretend they cannot read to justify their dis-informational posts.

Did Paul speak to the babes in Christ as men of flesh? Yes. Therefore men of flesh can understand the milk of the gospel. Such a simple obvious truth, yet denied by each and every Calvinist, all pretending that scripture does not say what it says.

So the OP asked for scripture to support the premise of total spiritual inability, and what we have is a denial of scripture teaching fallen people have limited spiritual ability that they can lose by the practice of sin. They deny that God hardens hearts to preclude fallen folks from responding to the milk of the gospel and being healed. They deny Jesus taught in parables to prevent fallen folks from understanding and responding to the gospel and being healed. Verse after verse, passage after passage, all sacrificed of the alter of Calvinism's mistaken doctrine.

 

Thank you for explaining it to me, Van.

 

God knows the future because He is omniscience.

No dead in sin sinner has a will that is free.

 

It can't be because their "hearts were open to hear and believe" because the text clearly shows that no one is open to the Son, no one will believe, without first being drawn. Read through the whole chapter of John 6 in one sitting, I would recommend the NASB or HCSB, but obviously whatever translation you want will work, just stay away from the paraphrases (The Message, NLT, TLB etc). Outline the arguments Jesus makes and pay attention carefully to what he actually says.

I'll hit the high points for you:

v22-27 the crowd follows Jesus because they want food, not because they saw the signs, and Jesus rebukes them for this

v30 The crowd asks what will Jesus do so that they may see and believe (Remember this correlation of see and believe - It is important)

v35-40 Jesus declares that they have seen (physically) yet do not believe. Those who come to him will never hunger those who believe will never thirst, clearly making "come" and "believe" synonymous in this passage, both mean that Jesus is the one who satisfies your spiritual needs. He says that everyone who the Father gives to him will come (Thus coming is dependent upon first being given by the Father), and they will be preserved until the last day. He then says that everyone who sees and believes are those who are receive eternal life, meaning they are the same as those who are given to him.

v44-45 Jesus says that no one can (no one is able) to come to him unless the Father draws him and the one drawn will be preserved, clearly mirroring v 39, making drawing to the Son and giving to the Son synonymous. And this is the fulfillment of ancient prophecy that all those in covenant relationship with God will be taught by God. This teaching is best understood as the giving of the new heart and writing God's commands in the heart, i.e, regeneration.

v64-65 Jesus explains why some can see the miracles and yet still not believe, no one can come to him (they are not capable of coming, which as we saw earlier (v35) is synonymous to believing) unless the Father grants that to them. It is the ability to come that the Father must grant, he must first give them the ability to do this it is not something that can be done naturally. That's the whole point.

I hope that was helpful.

 

Think many would profit from reading the Bondage of the Will Luther wrote, as he adressed this subject the best from one not an Apostle!

 

God has already predetermined all taht will come to pass in history, and he used both him direct causing events to happen, and also when we chose to have things happen, as all come together for His purposes..

He is outside linear time, has planned and purposed what happens, but yet He is not responsible for the fall, nor for what humans "decided' to do!

 

John 7? You mean 6 I assume. And just because the full import of regeneration was not revealed until later, doesn't mean it wasn't hinted at and typified already. What do you think "born again" in John 3 means?

And the New Covenant came into full force after the cross, but was already coming in during Jesus ministry. The ministry time was a transition period.

Also you didn't answer anything about John 6 that I posted above. I would love to see your answer.

 

For Clarification

Let's differentiate some; shall we? The NLT is not a paraphrase --it's dynamically oriented when it's not literal. If you would look at John 6 in the NLTse you would find a surprising amount of similarity with it and mainstream translations most of the time.

The Message is too loose to even be called a paraphrase.

TLB is certainly a loose paraphrase. Does anyone read it these days? I doubt many do.

 

OK. Thanks for the correction. I was under the impression it was really a paraphrase. I've read some of it and noticed it was very "loose" in places, so I don't use it.

:laugh:

Not many. There is one older guy at my church that occasionally uses it. He balances it out with the KNJV and NIV though. I guess it just came to mind since he was using it in our theology class on Wednesday and it stuck in my mind.

 

Just promise you will read John 6 in the NLTse and give me your feedback here or in the Bible translations forum.