Can someone WANT to be saved but not be?

[Luke2427]

Like I said, go rob someone and use this argument as your defense in court and see if it works.



And I am telling you I would not "desire" to give him my wallet at all, though I would give it to him.



Their greatest desire is a choice. They want both, but they reason the child's need is more important than having a new TV. Their greatest desire is determined by reason, not brute passion.

If I hand my wallet to the robber, it is not because I have this overwhelming desire to give him my wallet. I don't desire to give him my wallet at all. My desire is to keep my own wallet. But I reason that it would be wise to give the robber my wallet to preserve my life.

A person controlled by their desires would be nothing but an animal. A man would attack every beautiful woman he sees. You would steal whatever you desired, etc...

Go down your street and ask every neighbor if they desire to go to hell. Not one will tell you they desire this. The problem is their thoughts have been deceived by lies from Satan. They believe they are good enough as is to merit heaven.

It is like the old children's rhyme,

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, all good children go to heaven.

Folks believe this stuff. They have been taught this lie since childhood. They are taught you have to earn heaven, to merit it. Try convincing a Roman Catholic that salvation is simply a free gift, they won't believe you. They have been taught by whom they trust the most you must merit heaven, their parents, and their church since they were born. They have been taught that as long as they don't commit serious sin they will be ok.

The reason these folks don't believe the gospel is not because they desire to go to hell, but rather because their minds have been blinded by falsehood.

You don't get it. It's not even that you get the argument but you disagree. It is literally that you don't even get the argument.

If I tell you to give me your wallet- you may say- NO! I don't want to!

But if I I limit your options I can make you want to give me your wallet. It's nt that you will enjoy giving it to me but I will limit your options so much that you will want to give it to me more than any other option I give you.

If I grab you around your neck and squeeze until you can't breath and I say, "Give me your wallet or die," now you still have a choice- but it is limited to only two options now.

Option 1- give me your wallet and live.
Option 2- hold on to your wallet and die.

Now you will CHOOSE to do whatever you most want to do. If you most want to hold on to your wallet and die, then you will choose to hold on to your wallet while I end your life.
But if you most want to live then you will give me your wallet.

It's not that you don't wish you had other options. Sure. You'd hold on to your wallet if I did not limit your options- but I did. Now you will choose between those options that I gave you what YOU MOST WANT TO DO.

That's every choice you ever make. You may wish you had other options before you make a choice, but Providence decides the options for you and you simply choose from out of the options available which one you MOST WANT.

Got it?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

About this Compatibilistic view:

Let us first realize that a compatibilitic explanation for things would not even exist if the committment to determinism were not already in place. It is not as though a compatibilist model is somehow inherently obvious. Compatibilism only exists as a means to attempt to reconcile the incompatible notion that determinism can be true on the one hand....and human responsibility can be maintained on the other. If Compatibilism fails to reconcile these irreconcilable proposals then one or both of them will be abandoned. Ask a compatibilist this:

Can we choose what are our greatest desires? If not...then they are the result of antecendent or prior conditions (i.e. an inherited sin nature...an utterly depraved nature). The "choice" then, was pre-determined by exterior causes not generated by the agent in question: namely, we as human beings. They were in fact completely sufficient and prior conditions (both logically and temporally) chosen not by US as humans but rather a combination of God's decree...the sin of Adam....laws of nature..et.al. These conditions are sufficient to guarantee the outcome of any "choice" made.
Therefore, that "choice" was compelled....and ultimately...it was compelled by the decree of a Totally Sovereign God. Hence, God is morally responsible for all decisions good or evil. Thus, God is the author of evil.

Compatibilism is consistent with determinism
It is not consistent with moral responsibility.

I bogart this statement from:

http://www.sorites.org/Issue_15/ferraiol.htm

"Even if we assume the compatibilist account of free agency, we must conclude that free will is an illusion in a deterministic world. If determinism is true, human behaviors, including acts of will, are compelled by antecedent conditions and laws of nature, and none of them could have been avoided -- unless the world had turned out differently. But the world is, of course, as it is and not as it might have been. Similarly, the agent's causal history and environment are fixed antecedents and concomitants of each of the agent's internal states. These conditions compel the agent's choices. Compelled choices compel behaviors. If determinism is true, we are not free and we cannot be legitimately held morally responsible for our actions."

What our compatibilist brethren have done is push the problem of human culpability back one step...but it still ultimately fails.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Christ is able to save all who come to God through Him in faith. That is the foundation of the free offering of the gospel.

 

[quantumfaith]

Christ is able to save all who come to God through Him in faith. That is the foundation of the free offering of the gospel.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

And if we all in BB land were to stop there EWF, we would indeed fulfill Rodney Kings request......"Can't we all just get along".

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

And if we all in BB land were to stop there EWF, we would indeed fulfill Rodney Kings request......"Can't we all just get along".

Well that aint a gonna happen because they all prefer to argue rather than seeing commonality....pretty pathetic & Im ashamed for them. you want to argue...argue about the best way to feed & care for the downtrodden, widows & orphans.

 

[convicted1]

Christ is able to save all who come to God through Him in faith. That is the foundation of the free offering of the gospel.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Can I get an "AMEN"??

 

[convicted1]

Well that aint a gonna happen because they all prefer to argue rather than seeing commonality....pretty pathetic & Im ashamed for them. you want to argue...argue about the best way to feed & care for the downtrodden, widows & orphans.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


Just call you "butta", because you're on a roll.

 

[jbh28]

Like I said, go rob someone and use this argument as your defense in court and see if it works.

You're missing the point...again

And I am telling you I would not "desire" to give him my wallet at all, though I would give it to him.

but you would desire to give him your wallet over not. I have proven this because..well..you give him your wallet when you had the option to not give him your wallet.

Their greatest desire is a choice. They want both, but they reason the child's need is more important than having a new TV. Their greatest desire is determined by reason, not brute passion.

We are speaking about what is the different in choice(which is desire) not why they have certain desires.

If I hand my wallet to the robber, it is not because I have this overwhelming desire to give him my wallet. I don't desire to give him my wallet at all. My desire is to keep my own wallet. But I reason that it would be wise to give the robber my wallet to preserve my life.

Right! which, because the gun has very much limited your options, your greatest desire now with your limited options is to give him your wallet.

A person controlled by their desires would be nothing but an animal. A man would attack every beautiful woman he sees. You would steal whatever you desired, etc...

Really? no. we all make choices according to our desires. Every time. Now, you say that you desire to attack a beautiful woman. Why don't you? Because your desire to please the Lord is greater? or for an unsaved man, his desire to be a good citizen is greater.

Again, you always choose you greatest desire with the options available to you. You may have conflicting desires. But you will always choose your greatest.

why don' you steal whatever you desire? Well, hopefully you would say because your desire to please the Lord is greater than your desire to steal and thus you say no, I won't steal that item.

So yes, we always choose our greatest desire with the options available to us at the time. We many times will have competing desires. You may want to eat the chocolate cake, but your desire to stay healthy is greater so you don't eat it. Now tomorrow, your desire to stay healthy may not be so much and thus you eat the cake.

 

[jbh28]

Christ is able to save all who come to God through Him in faith. That is the foundation of the free offering of the gospel.

Yes! Well said

 

[webdog]

About this Compatibilistic view:

Let us first realize that a compatibilitic explanation for things would not even exist if the committment to determinism were not already in place. It is not as though a compatibilist model is somehow inherently obvious. Compatibilism only exists as a means to attempt to reconcile the incompatible notion that determinism can be true on the one hand....and human responsibility can be maintained on the other. If Compatibilism fails to reconcile these irreconcilable proposals then one or both of them will be abandoned. Ask a compatibilist this:

Can we choose what are our greatest desires? If not...then they are the result of antecendent or prior conditions (i.e. an inherited sin nature...an utterly depraved nature). The "choice" then, was pre-determined by exterior causes not generated by the agent in question: namely, we as human beings. They were in fact completely sufficient and prior conditions (both logically and temporally) chosen not by US as humans but rather a combination of God's decree...the sin of Adam....laws of nature..et.al. These conditions are sufficient to guarantee the outcome of any "choice" made.
Therefore, that "choice" was compelled....and ultimately...it was compelled by the decree of a Totally Sovereign God. Hence, God is morally responsible for all decisions good or evil. Thus, God is the author of evil.

Compatibilism is consistent with determinism
It is not consistent with moral responsibility.

I bogart this statement from:

http://www.sorites.org/Issue_15/ferraiol.htm

"Even if we assume the compatibilist account of free agency, we must conclude that free will is an illusion in a deterministic world. If determinism is true, human behaviors, including acts of will, are compelled by antecedent conditions and laws of nature, and none of them could have been avoided -- unless the world had turned out differently. But the world is, of course, as it is and not as it might have been. Similarly, the agent's causal history and environment are fixed antecedents and concomitants of each of the agent's internal states. These conditions compel the agent's choices. Compelled choices compel behaviors. If determinism is true, we are not free and we cannot be legitimately held morally responsible for our actions."

What our compatibilist brethren have done is push the problem of human culpability back one step...but it still ultimately fails.

Excellent post :thumbs:

It will be subsequently ignored by the compatibilists

 

[Dr. Bob]

Many SAY they want to be saved, go to heaven when they die, etc

The rich young ruler did NOT want Jesus as Savior. He wanted Jesus to explain to him how he could be his OWN savior.

Romans 1-3 speak of the three different mindsets (all of which lead man to hell) of unregenerate. One of those is the "religious" sinner who "wants" to believe and do, etc, but this is not the matter of a heart-change, but rather a "work".

And we all know that any work of our righteousness [supposed] or law keeping or religion or even sincere belief/desire to get to heaven will NOT save.

 

[Tom Butler]

That must be one of the worst sermons I have ever heard. The only effect preaching like this can accomplish is to make people doubt their salvation. I can imagine every single person in his audience coming away full of fear and doubt, and forever seeking some "unknown" faith they cannot hope to understand.

The scriptures are simple and straightforward. Jesus said whosoever comes to him, he will in no wise cast out. He didn't say our repentance must be perfect, our feelings perfect, our intentions perfect, etc... Jesus said if we come to him in our heart desiring that he save us, HE WILL SAVE US, and under no circumstances whatsoever shall he ever cast us out.

Jesus encouraged faith, he gave complete assurance. Fellows like Edwards spread doubt and fear to everyone who heard him. This is the technique the Roman Catholic church used for centuries to control people, FEAR.

We can agreeably disagree on the worthiness of the Edwards sermon. And I certainly agree with you regarding the simplicity of scriptures.

Regarding the fear factor, of course it can be wrongly abused. But the presentation of the gospel to a lost man must, of necessity, include the consequences of our sin--hell. And frankly, the prospect of going there ought to scary. When I came under conviction as a child, all those sermons on hell I had heard flooded in and it scared the daylights out of me.

But, those sermons on God's love, on Jesus' willingness to take my sin upon himself also prodded me to run to him for salvation.

I'm sure you've had occasion to deal with people who have come to doubt their salvation. How did you handle that? I think my first inclination is to take them back to their original profession of faith. try to find out why doubt has come, and try to help them through some scriptures which do give assurance of God's faithfulness to his promises.

But I think we have to be careful about that. There may be a legitimate reason for doubt. I know three deacons who became convinced that they had never been truly saved. To try to give them assurance would have been exactly the wrong thing to do.

I think we have a great message of God's love for sinners. But we cannot preach that to the exclusion of God's hatred of sin.

 

[percho]

Jeremiah 31:31-34 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Hebrews 8:10-13 For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old ready to vanish away.

Luke 22:20 YLT In like manner, also, the cup after the supping, saying, `This cup [is] the new covenant in my blood, that for you is being poured forth.


Assuming the above is the determining factor in whether one is in heaven or hell:

Each and all please show me where the recipient of the grace of God through Christ does A thing concerning that grace. Where in the above is the faith of the man, wanting to go to heaven?

I will agree that there is faith, a verb, in the scriptures above, being exercised by one that became a noun, the faith, through which the grace of God was given that brings salvation to man.

Read Hebrews 5:7-10 in the context of what I have just stated.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Jeremiah 31:31-34 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Hebrews 8:10-13 For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old ready to vanish away.

Luke 22:20 YLT In like manner, also, the cup after the supping, saying, `This cup [is] the new covenant in my blood, that for you is being poured forth.


Assuming the above is the determining factor in whether one is in heaven or hell:
Where in the above is the faith of the man, wanting to go to heaven?
I will agree that there is faith, a verb, in the scriptures above, being exercised by one that became a noun, the faith, through which the grace of God was given that brings salvation to man.
Read Hebrews 5:7-10 in the context of what I have just stated.

You apparently feel that you have made a point which is self-evident to anyone closely reading your post and those Scriptures...but your meaning escapes me...For context's sake, I read the passages...The Hebrews passages I read along with the chapters preceeding them and the next chapters afterward. I must have missed something....because I cannot see how this is particularly relevant to anything being discussed. Maybe it is, but you might have to eplain it to us. Allow me to explain: you say...

Each and all please show me where the recipient of the grace of God through Christ does A thing concerning that grace.

I think that you are arguing against a proposition heretofore posed by NNE....Who are you debating here????

Furthermore...You ask this rhetorical question:

Where in the above is the faith of the man, wanting to go to heaven?

To give a definitive and direct answer: No-where...inasmuch as "faith" (which you bolded) is never even mentioned...used...or alluded to....

I will agree that there is faith, a verb, in the scriptures above, being exercised by one that became a noun, the faith, through which the grace of God was given that brings salvation to man.

Incidentally...neither is the word "grace".

 

[Winman]

We can agreeably disagree on the worthiness of the Edwards sermon. And I certainly agree with you regarding the simplicity of scriptures.

Regarding the fear factor, of course it can be wrongly abused. But the presentation of the gospel to a lost man must, of necessity, include the consequences of our sin--hell. And frankly, the prospect of going there ought to scary. When I came under conviction as a child, all those sermons on hell I had heard flooded in and it scared the daylights out of me.

But, those sermons on God's love, on Jesus' willingness to take my sin upon himself also prodded me to run to him for salvation.

I'm sure you've had occasion to deal with people who have come to doubt their salvation. How did you handle that? I think my first inclination is to take them back to their original profession of faith. try to find out why doubt has come, and try to help them through some scriptures which do give assurance of God's faithfulness to his promises.

But I think we have to be careful about that. There may be a legitimate reason for doubt. I know three deacons who became convinced that they had never been truly saved. To try to give them assurance would have been exactly the wrong thing to do.

I think we have a great message of God's love for sinners. But we cannot preach that to the exclusion of God's hatred of sin.

I have no problem with preaching on hell, I think it should be done often. The day I was saved the pastor preached on hell and it scared me to death. I did not want to go another second with my soul in peril. At the invitation I went down and was shown from the scriptures that I was a sinner, that the wages of sin is death, that Jesus is the Son of God who died for my sins on the cross and rose again, and that if I call on him and trust him to save me he would. I prayed and asked Jesus to forgive all my sins and save me. I was 100% sincere when I prayed this, that is what matters.

But this preaching that folks can sincerely call on Jesus to save them and yet be lost is unscriptural and harmful. You leave folks wondering what this mysteriious faith they are supposed to have is. In Calvinism, a person is taught they do not have the ability to believe, and any faith they might have is self generated and false. I can only imagine how utterly helpless a person would feel hearing a message like this. All a man can do is cry out for mercy like the publican in Luke 18:13.

Luk 18:13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

This poor publican probably did not know much about theology, but he knew he was a sinner and that his soul was in peril. He simply cried out to God to have mercy on him and forgive his sins. Jesus said this man went down to his house justified, his sins forgiven.

Folks want to complicate the gospel. It is simple, and any man who cries out to Jesus to save him the way this poor publican did will be saved.

Of course, if this poor man was unfortunate enough to be in a Reformed church he would be immediately surrounded by folks who would question his faith and tell him his cry for mercy was founded on emotion or simply a desire to escape hell and was false. He would be told he could only "really believe" if God regenerated him. He would be left hoping that somehow God would regenerate him someday. He would be waiting for a magical experience that would never come.

This poor man would leave the church in a worse state of misery than when he entered. He would be saved if he truly called on Jesus to save him, but he might not ever know it.

This is the worst kind of preaching. The scriptures do teach us to make our salvation sure, this is done by giving a clear presentation of the gospel that any man can understand. A man doesn't need to know the depths of theology to be saved.

 

[percho]

You apparently feel that you have made a point which is self-evident to anyone closely reading your post and those Scriptures...but your meaning escapes me...For context's sake, I read the passages...The Hebrews passages I read along with the chapters preceeding them and the next chapters afterward. I must have missed something....because I cannot see how this is particularly relevant to anything being discussed. Maybe it is, but you might have to eplain it to us. Allow me to explain: you say...



I think that you are arguing against a proposition heretofore posed by NNE....Who are you debating here????

Furthermore...You ask this rhetorical question:

To give a definitive and direct answer: No-where...inasmuch as "faith" (which you bolded) is never even mentioned...used...or alluded to....



Incidentally...neither is the word "grace".

Well I cannot speak for Skandelon but I believe the OP is suggesting that rather than God electing one to be saved, that if a man who wants to be saved puts his faith in Jesus and then God will save him.

We are living souls, that is flesh and blood. As such we cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Inheriting the kingdom of God is a much more prevailing concept of the word of God than dying and going to heaven. Jesus the only begotten Son of God was sinless yet he came into the world as one of the children of the living soul Adam, flesh and blood. Adam was the type of him to come, Jesus. Rom 5:14 also Heb. 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that is flesh and blood unfit for the kingdom of God.

And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together. [with him]
Jesus has inherited, we in him are still only heirs. (John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.) By grace through the faith, salvation came for man. The faith was Jesus dying and the grace was the Father raising him from the dead giving him glory. Jesus was the very first elected, and the first cause of eternal salvation. Fit for the kingdom of God no more to return to corruption, by the resurrection.

God is doing this by election. What is he doing? 2Cor. 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, (the first elect) reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Do you see the new covenant in this statement? Election?
Eph. 1:4-6 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
Election? Acts 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. Why? Eph. 1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: More election? Acts 15:16,17 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: Why? That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him:

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

What is man's role?

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this the whole of man.

That is my understanding of the word of God and you would be correct if you said I might be the only one with this understanding, however it is what the word says.

 

[Winman]

You're missing the point...again

I am not. Try this argument of yours in a real life courtroom. They will laugh you out of the place as they haul you off to jail. It's pure nonsense.

but you would desire to give him your wallet over not. I have proven this because..well..you give him your wallet when you had the option to not give him your wallet.

I would have no desire to give him my wallet at all. You can say it a hundred times and it would be false. You would not desire to give the robber your wallet either, but you would do it.

Back to the courtroom, your attorney questions your robbery victim. Your attorney asks the victim if he desired to give you the wallet. What do you think his answer will be?

We are speaking about what is the different in choice(which is desire) not why they have certain desires.
Right! which, because the gun has very much limited your options, your greatest desire now with your limited options is to give him your wallet.

Your gun FORCED me to surrender my wallet AGAINST MY WILL. That is why it is robbery. If I sincerely desired to give you my wallet, you would be committing no crime by taking it when I gave it to you.

This is like arguing with a teenager.

Really? no. we all make choices according to our desires. Every time. Now, you say that you desire to attack a beautiful woman. Why don't you? Because your desire to please the Lord is greater? or for an unsaved man, his desire to be a good citizen is greater.

I would have rather taken the day off today and enjoyed the nice weather, but I reasoned that I have bills to pay and decided to go to work.

Again, you always choose you greatest desire with the options available to you. You may have conflicting desires. But you will always choose your greatest.

Then there would be no such thing as robbery, it wouldn't exist.

why don' you steal whatever you desire? Well, hopefully you would say because your desire to please the Lord is greater than your desire to steal and thus you say no, I won't steal that item.

Yes, I do want to obey the Lord, and I do not desire to be a criminal, especially this type. So, by my reasoning I would not commit such a crime. That doesn't negate that women by nature are attractive to me and that I feel a natural desire toward them.

Paul said we are to beat our body into submission. We are to "put off" our sinful desires. This is reasoning over desire.

So yes, we always choose our greatest desire with the options available to us at the time. We many times will have competing desires. You may want to eat the chocolate cake, but your desire to stay healthy is greater so you don't eat it. Now tomorrow, your desire to stay healthy may not be so much and thus you eat the cake.

And that is a conscious decision. I still desired the chocolate cake. Tomorrow, I may reason I have done well on my diet and that I can afford to have a small piece of cake. It is my reasoning that controls my greatest desire, not the other way around as you teach.

You yourself have said you would not attack a woman because you desire to please and serve God. This statement in itself is direct evidence of your reason. You control your desires, they do not control you.

 

[Yeshua1]

Christ is able to save all who come to God through Him in faith. That is the foundation of the free offering of the gospel.

the 64,000 question is here though does a sinner by himself have the desire/means/will to accept jesus or Not?

think its pretty clear that sinners like you and I once were before god have NO means to do that, so that means that salvation start to finish is of the lord!

back to OP...

NONE who desire to come to Christ will be turned away by Him, and ONLY those whose natural desires were affected/changed by God will desire to Come!

 

[jbh28]

I am not. Try this argument of yours in a real life courtroom. They will laugh you out of the place as they haul you off to jail. It's pure nonsense.

You missed the point. when you are tempted to mock me, think again because you probably have missed the point.

It would be like the criminal say, "well he gave it to me so I didn't take it. That wouldn't fly because the only reason he gave it was because of the gun pointed at his head. same thing with what I said, the only reason you had any type of desire was becasue you had a gun pointed at your head and you only had 2 options and thus you choose the better of the 2 because you desired one option over the other. again, you're missing the point as has been pointed out.

I would have no desire to give him my wallet at all. You can say it a hundred times and it would be false. You would not desire to give the robber your wallet either, but you would do it.

You gave him your wallet which proves you desired to give him your wallet more than any other option available to you at the time.

Your gun FORCED me to surrender my wallet AGAINST MY WILL. That is why it is robbery. If I sincerely desired to give you my wallet, you would be committing no crime by taking it when I gave it to you.

Of course you didn't desire. But when he pointed the gun, you only have two options.

A. keep wallet and die
B. give wallet and live

Which option do you desire more?

Your desire to give the wallet is much greater than to keep it now that you have been limited to these two options. You keep missing the key point(or more like ignoring it). Did you want to give him you wallet. No, but in that moment, you wanted to do that more than any other options available to you.

I would have rather taken the day off today and enjoyed the nice weather, but I reasoned that I have bills to pay and decided to go to work.

very good. you're desire to have your bills paid and be a responsible person was greater than your desire to take a day off work.

Yes, I do want to obey the Lord, and I do not desire to be a criminal, especially this type. So, by my reasoning I would not commit such a crime. That doesn't negate that women by nature are attractive to me and that I feel a natural desire toward them.

And your desire to obey the Lord is greater than any desire to disobey

I still desired the chocolate cake. Tomorrow, I may reason I have done well on my diet and that I can afford to have a small piece of cake. It is my reasoning that controls my greatest desire, not the other way around as you teach.

please quote for me where I ever said the opposite. You can't, because I didn't. you reasoned that giving your wallet to the criminal would keep you alive and thus giving your wallet would be your greatest desire. You are arguing a straw man. I have not discussed what causes our desires to change, but that our choices are always based on our desires.

 

[Skandelon]

About this Compatibilistic view:

Let us first realize that a compatibilitic explanation for things would not even exist if the committment to determinism were not already in place. It is not as though a compatibilist model is somehow inherently obvious. Compatibilism only exists as a means to attempt to reconcile the incompatible notion that determinism can be true on the one hand....and human responsibility can be maintained on the other. If Compatibilism fails to reconcile these irreconcilable proposals then one or both of them will be abandoned. Ask a compatibilist this:

Can we choose what are our greatest desires? If not...then they are the result of antecendent or prior conditions (i.e. an inherited sin nature...an utterly depraved nature). The "choice" then, was pre-determined by exterior causes not generated by the agent in question: namely, we as human beings. They were in fact completely sufficient and prior conditions (both logically and temporally) chosen not by US as humans but rather a combination of God's decree...the sin of Adam....laws of nature..et.al. These conditions are sufficient to guarantee the outcome of any "choice" made.
Therefore, that "choice" was compelled....and ultimately...it was compelled by the decree of a Totally Sovereign God. Hence, God is morally responsible for all decisions good or evil. Thus, God is the author of evil.

Compatibilism is consistent with determinism
It is not consistent with moral responsibility.

I bogart this statement from:

http://www.sorites.org/Issue_15/ferraiol.htm

"Even if we assume the compatibilist account of free agency, we must conclude that free will is an illusion in a deterministic world. If determinism is true, human behaviors, including acts of will, are compelled by antecedent conditions and laws of nature, and none of them could have been avoided -- unless the world had turned out differently. But the world is, of course, as it is and not as it might have been. Similarly, the agent's causal history and environment are fixed antecedents and concomitants of each of the agent's internal states. These conditions compel the agent's choices. Compelled choices compel behaviors. If determinism is true, we are not free and we cannot be legitimately held morally responsible for our actions."

What our compatibilist brethren have done is push the problem of human culpability back one step...but it still ultimately fails.

:thumbsup: I agree with WebDog. This is an excellent post and thus far his prediction of it being ignored is unfortunately accurate.