Did Jesus have free will?

[BobRyan]

Scott said
I proposed the excuse: "I never heard the gospel... if I had then I might have made the right choice too".

Which is a perfectly valid complaint if the goodness to believe originates within the man himself.

Who is to say that people who lived and died without hearing the gospel wouldn't have believed under the arminian system? How is not completely unjust that God didn't ensure that they heard the gospel to answer that conviction you say they all had and were totally free and capable to respond to in their unregenerate nature?

This is "Again" a good "mix" of Calvinism with truth and then claiming "Well that doesn't make sense".

Try leaving Calvinism OUT OF IT entirely!! Try JUST stating an Arminian position and then showing that the ARMINIAN view does not make sense.

The Arminian view is NOT that "man has the goodness IN HIMSELF to be a Christian".

Try again.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Scott said -
So far you have not dealt with the absolute and undeniable statement that the children of God are not born of the will of men (including themselves) but rather of the will of God.

I have no problem believing THE WHOLE passage. It is you that needs to omit or redefine verse 13.

Fine - prove it. Respond to the post.

(here it is "again")

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
6 There came a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him.

Global context: "The LIGHT OF MEN" unqualified.
"Light shines in DARKNESS" - the entire world is said to be in darkness not just the jews.
"so that ALL might believe through Him" Unqualified - the message of John in the Gospels has gone to all the WORLD.

8 He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.
9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

In vs 12 we see that the action of those who received Christ is what determines the result and in the Greek the reception is in the "active voice". It does not state that some other action was taken forcing them to be children of God and then merely note that they also "received Christ". (Analytical Greek NT - "indicative mood" and "active voice" used for receive in John 1:12)
</font>[/QUOTE]

 

[Scott J]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
The Arminian argument is never that Man can cause the new birth or that God's act in drawing and convicting is not done "first" in the process that leads to the New Birth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott said --
I am not really concerned about the Arminian nor Calvinist "argument". The scripture directly says that those who become the children of God are not born into that relationship by the will of man. It doesn't say anything here about a general offer or drawing/convicting.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then anti-Scott said


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notably you twisted my comment. I didn't say anything about conviction. I proposed the excuse: "I never heard the gospel... if I had then I might have made the right choice too".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which Scott am I to respond to?

Two different responses to two different comments/contentions by you.

One was where you tried to superimpose the "general call" on John 1:13. The other is where I proposed an excuse for the sinner under the Arminian model who never heard the gospel.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Scott said
I proposed the excuse: "I never heard the gospel... if I had then I might have made the right choice too".

Which is a perfectly valid complaint if the goodness to believe originates within the man himself.

Who is to say that people who lived and died without hearing the gospel wouldn't have believed under the arminian system? How is not completely unjust that God didn't ensure that they heard the gospel to answer that conviction you say they all had and were totally free and capable to respond to in their unregenerate nature?

This is "Again" a good "mix" of Calvinism with truth and then claiming "Well that doesn't make sense".

Try leaving Calvinism OUT OF IT entirely!! Try JUST stating an Arminian position and then showing that the ARMINIAN view does not make sense.</font>[/QUOTE] I did leave calvinism out of it.

It was questions like this that caused me to abandon arminian views and look for a better explanation.

The Arminian view is NOT that "man has the goodness IN HIMSELF to be a Christian".

Try again.

Then where does the motive for the good choice to believe come from?

If you say from God then why do some men receive it while others don't? Under the arminian model, it must be something good within the man that causes him to believe.

But since you have denied this is the case, please give your reasoning to explain why some believe while others don't.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Scott said -
So far you have not dealt with the absolute and undeniable statement that the children of God are not born of the will of men (including themselves) but rather of the will of God.

I have no problem believing THE WHOLE passage. It is you that needs to omit or redefine verse 13.

Fine - prove it. Respond to the post.

(here it is "again")

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
6 There came a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him.

Global context: "The LIGHT OF MEN" unqualified. </font>[/QUOTE] Not necessarily. It is also unquantified. He is certainly the only light available to man.

"Light shines in DARKNESS" - the entire world is said to be in darkness not just the jews.

True.

"so that ALL might believe through Him" Unqualified - the message of John in the Gospels has gone to all the WORLD.

True. There is a general call. The argument isn't over this. It is over who responds to the call and why.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
8 He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.
9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

In vs 12 we see that the action of those who received Christ is what determines the result and in the Greek the reception is in the "active voice". It does not state that some other action was taken forcing them to be children of God and then merely note that they also "received Christ". (Analytical Greek NT - "indicative mood" and "active voice" used for receive in John 1:12)
</font>[/QUOTE]</font>[/QUOTE]Yes and born in verse 13 is aorist passive... which fits very well with my contention that it is not chronology that matters but priority.

Born=&gt;received=&gt;became children. In order of priority and cause/effect.

If you accept the model received=&gt; became children =&gt; born, not only is it non-sensical, it further makes man's choice to receive the prime cause... which makes it a matter of merit, not grace.

 

[BobRyan]

"Details" again would point to the fact that the text "actually says" --

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8 He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.
9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In vs 12 we see that the action of those who received Christ is what determines the result

This "shocking" reality is consistently ignored by those who find it to be "an inconvenient fact" in the text.

How "instructive"

In addition -- the Greek has the reception in the "active voice".

(It does not state that some other action was taken forcing them to be children of God NOR does it claim to merely note that they also "just so happened to receive Christ". )

The Calvinist argument fails here.

In Christ,

Bob