Featured Free will and the gospel

I haven't read through this entire thread - but, don't forget Agrippa and his sessions with Paul

Acts 26
27 King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.
28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
29 And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.

HankD

 

Do you think Felix trembled because of “judgement to come,” as most Roman (as did Greeks) sought oracles to signify some future event?

Perhaps the Holy Spirit wasn’t causing the trembling?

But, then, the Scriptures draw to silence on Felix, perhaps outside sources can indicate if salvation ever came to him.

 

Well good,

Now there is actual words given.

So, explain how the words show other than the total inability of man and total capability of God.

 

Is there a theological difference between "total inability" and "total depravity" (TULIP)?

 

Interesting discussion from a non calvinist on this question!
lloydstreeter.com/2016/06/30/total-depravity-vs-total-inability/

1. Cached

 

Thank you. I believe in total inability because God must regenerate before faith can be manifest.

 

Just read the passages, Agedman. They had enough spiritual ability to will to be saved (Romans 9:16) to seek God's righteousness by works or faith or both (Romans 9:31-33) to receive the gospel (Matthew 13) and to be entering the kingdom (Matthew 23:13). OTOH, you have provided no support whatsoever for your bogus claims.

 

So, you admit the Romans 9 passage doesn’t support your statement.

Next?

 

Maybe he had Parkinson's?
Seriously bro..........why would the Holy Spirit inspire brother Luke to write down "Felix trembled"? the man was SCARED because Paul no doubt had just showed him that he was a wicked sinner, destined to bust Hell wide open.

 

Perhaps,

The Scripture does say that Felix was well aware of “the way”.

What I base my thinking on was: Acts 24:26 At the same time he was hoping that Paul would offer him a bribe, so he sent for him frequently and talked with him.

 

Yet another post denying the very words of scripture. (And misrepresenting my view as well.)
Folks, his effort is not to present truth, but to obfuscate. Pay no heed.
Just read the passages! They had enough spiritual ability to will to be saved (Romans 9:16) to seek God's righteousness by works or faith or both (Romans 9:31-33) to receive the gospel (Matthew 13) and to be entering the kingdom (Matthew 23:13).

 

“So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.” (Romans 9:16)

Just one verse out of Van’s list.

What does it indicate of humans ability?

“then it doees not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs”

Ok so no human ability of will or effort is a determiner.

What of being involved as the starter or instigator?

Who then is the authority as both the author and completor?

“God who has mercy.”

“...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God...” (Hebrews 12:2)

But then Van considers human faith has the ability in some manner to be “will” and as humans put forth the “effort” (runs) then God responds.

How is this not representing correctly the view of Van?

It is and shows from his own words how he struggles to insert human ability where the scriptures, of his own list, do not share the same view.

 

Van uses these verses from Romans 9, also:

30What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone,
​

In his thinking, the word “faith” is that ability innate in the human that when expressed can gain in some manner God’s attention.

However, this section comes from a larger portion which the authority of God is discussed. For example,

19You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it?21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.​

All matters reside in the authority of God.

 

Note the change of subject, the verse shows fallen people can will and work to be saved, thus having some spiritual ability. His bogus doctrine claims fallen people are unable, unless enabled by irresistible grace, to seek God and trust in Christ. Thus Romans 9:16 demonstrates his man-made doctrine is bogus.

He keeps claiming my view is man somehow saves himself. That is false. Last point, accepting the gospel and trusting in Jesus is an act of human will, but that will does not save anyone. God and God alone saves whom He chooses, and He chooses those whose faith he credits as righteousness.

 

I see Mr. Agedman has repeated again the falsehood I think our faith somehow gains God's attention.
It is difficult to carry one biblical discussions with those who seem to have no regard for truth.

 

Iim

 

I believe a person enters into a salvific relationship with God when they receive indwelling Holy Spirit. What happens prior is a "movement" of God on that person to bring them to a place where they express faith in God. I believe the Gospel (Jesus Christ and Him crucified for sins) is an essential part of the "movement". The rest of the discussion is debate without end. Perhaps it is enough for me to know a person cannot come to salvation unless God is involved.

 

“NOT by the WILL of man,” means to Van that man “can will and work to be saved.”

Now, I realize tha my comprehension skills are becoming more frail, and my memory has too much arthritic to turn the pages of recall, but it does seem reasonable that when the Scriptures state “NOT by” and gives two specifics as to what is NOT by, then it just doesn’t take that much memory and comprehension to see that it is NOT by will or work.

Yet, Van would declare the opposite.

 

Yet another change the subject post. Disgusting

 

What change of subject?

Is the discussion not your view using the Romans verses?

Was it not shown that those verses do not support your thinking of humankind having the ability to activate salvation by merely exercising their will?

Perhaps your contention of a “change of subject” is just your avoidance.

?