Evangelistic atheistic evolutionists, such as Richard Dawkins,

[canadyjd]

Actaully, it doesn't. Let me ask you.. Why must the master make the slave do something? Is it because the slave 'can' do something different if he chooses? Answer: Yes. Yes the slave can 'will' to go against his masters authority.......(and).......Thus according Romans 7 man can 'will' while sold under or in sin, but man does not have the means where by he can escape his prison.

Paul doesn't say the slave doesn't have the means to escape, he says he cannot do what he "wants" to do, but instead, does what sin wants him to do.....every single time. That is the point of the analogy. There is not one single thing that is "good" that the slave can do. He always does what sin wants him to do. Romans 7:19 "For the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish."

Secondly, your logic is still faulty but it is because it is based on your preconcieved notion (regarding being born again).....Not about 'choosing' as is your postulation but that man is determining he IS TO BE or WILL BE born again. As though he were forcing God to obey him.

The passage is clear. The ones who are given the right to be called children of God, even the ones that believe in His name are "born"
1. not of bloods
2. not of the will of the flesh
3. not of the will of man....

(they are born) of God.

John brings this theme of being "born", in relation to salvation and the will of God, again in chapter 3. There, Jesus attributes being "born again" to the will of Holy Spirit.

The focus of both passages of scripture is on what God does in bringing about this condition of being "born". It rejects any notion that man's "free-will" has anything to do with it.

You keep tossing the term 'free-will' around without realy understanding what is meant by it. We are not speaking of libertarian free will but the responsibility of the will or limited will.

I understand "free-will" to mean that a human being makes choices based on a "will" that is free from outside influences.

Please explain what you mean by "the responsibility of the will" or "limited will".

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

I only put quotations around "controlled" not the whole phrase. That was the word YOU used. You don't read well...

I read pretty well. You just didn't understand my point. You used the word "controlled" (in quotes) when referring to Holy Spirit, as if I had said that. I said the slave was controlled by sin. I didn't say a person was "controlled" by Holy Spirit. Those are your words, not mine.

One cannot exchange the truth for a lie without having the truth as an option and knowing what it is.

Your statement is rejected by scripture. Jesus often spoke of people being "blinded" to the truth. They chose the lie without "knowing" the option of the truth, and they were still held accountable.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

Anybody can throw up a string of verses. What would you like me to address?

John 3:7-8 "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes and you here the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going, so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Jesus makes a play on words between the "wind" (pneuma: in Greek) and "Spirit" (pneumatos): The word "wishes" is from "thelo", and it means a determinitive act of the will.

Jesus clearly says that those that are "born again" do so because of the expressed will of Holy Spirit.

In addition, Jesus says that men cannot predict this movement of Holy Spirit in the salvation of men. "...you here the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going,..."

peace to youraying:

 

[pinoybaptist]

1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

This thread has been around for a while so I don't know if somebody addressed this already.

Whether "all men" means all of mankind as a specie or creation, or whether "all men" means all manner of men (bond, free, black, white, red, yellow, brown, rich, poor, ruler, slave, and everything else in-between) has been a matter of much discussion.

If "all men" means all of mankind as a species or creation then the same interpretation must be given to the following scriptures with regards to the preaching, spread, and proliferation of the gospel :

First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. Romans 1:8

But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. Romans 10:18.

The above Scriptures tell us that long before the William Careys and Adoniram Judsons (with all due respects to these men) went out to "spread the gospel" in compliance with the "great commission" the Roman Christians' faith were already spoken of throughout the whole world and that is because preaching of the gospel have been done since Isaiah's time all over the world.

So the world has already been saturated with the gospel ?

Isn't that exactly what "whole world", "all the earth", and "ends of the world" means ?

Will somebody please explain these verses ?

 

[webdog]

John 3:7-8 "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes and you here the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going, so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Jesus makes a play on words between the "wind" (pneuma: in Greek) and "Spirit" (pneumatos): The word "wishes" is from "thelo", and it means a determinitive act of the will.

Jesus clearly says that those that are "born again" do so because of the expressed will of Holy Spirit.

In addition, Jesus says that men cannot predict this movement of Holy Spirit in the salvation of men. "...you here the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going,..."

peace to youraying:

You're preaching to the choir...I agree with this.

 

[webdog]

Your statement is rejected by scripture. Jesus often spoke of people being "blinded" to the truth. They chose the lie without "knowing" the option of the truth, and they were still held accountable.

Scripture doesn't say how they were blinded. That is not my statement, btw, Scripture states the lost reject the truth for a lie.

 

[Havensdad]

Scripture doesn't say how they were blinded. That is not my statement, btw, Scripture states the lost reject the truth for a lie.

As scripture says everyone will and has done, including you and I.

Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

Since "all do evil", "none seek after God" and "even their good deeds are like filthy rags", John 3:20 applies to everyone.

BTW> WHY do they "reject the truth for a lie"?


"They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. "

and

Rom 9:18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

and

Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

and ....

I can go on.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Who is Richard Dawkins?:BangHead: Has his name been mentioned in this thread anywhere other than the title?:tonofbricks:

 

[webdog]

As scripture says everyone will and has done, including you and I.

Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

Hating, like loving is a choice. Men had the choice to love the light, but they loved darkness RATHER than the light. Choice.

"They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. "

and

Rom 9:18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

and

Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

and ....

I can go on.

Please don't...you have butchered it enough. We can make the Bible say anything we want when we pull verses at random to support our theology. If man was "destined" to reject the truth...why did God supply it, as some kind of twisted hoax?!? What a sinister view of God you have!

 

[Havensdad]

Hating, like loving is a choice. Men had the choice to love the light, but they loved darkness RATHER than the light. Choice.

Right. And we exercised that choice: we rejected God, nailed him to a cross, and spit in His face.

Please don't...you have butchered it enough. We can make the Bible say anything we want when we pull verses at random to support our theology.

Not like inventing things such as "free choice", which isn't even IN the Bible.

BTW, both of those were in context.

If man was "destined" to reject the truth...why did God supply it, as some kind of twisted hoax?!? What a sinister view of God you have!

And what a HIGH view of Man YOU have. Man's not that bad, really, is he?

Use your brain for a moment. Why were the unbelievers "destined" to disobey? Because they had ALREADY rejected God> which not only THEY have done, but us as well. We have already exercised our choice, and according to scripture, every one of us have chosen rebellion and antagonism towards God.

That is why Grace is so amazing, DESPITE that all chose to reject him, He chose some,, out of His mercy, to save anyway.

Repentance is given, that leads to salvation:

2Ti 2:24 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil,
2Ti 2:25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps give them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,
2Ti 2:26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

God DOES give faith:

Rom 12:3 For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.


I am GLAD God did not give me what I chose!!!

 

[Allan]

Hmm. Let's look at a few verses that say "all"...

How about we look at what the verse says in context with the surounding passages. THEN look at other passages. You're reversing the whole process of interpretation. Instead of letting the scripture determine your theology you are using your theology to make scripture say something else. That is a dangerous senerio to use.

1Co 10:33 even as I please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved.

Let's hope that has some qualifications....if it "pleases" men for Paul to deny Jesus, will he do it? No, we have to interpret it through things we read ELSEWHERE...

Mature a little here please. Your argument (or lack there of) is childish and begins with the premise I am limited in understanding or have the ability to comprehend.

SO let's look at that verse again, in a FULL context:

I agree :thumbs:

1Ti 2:1 First of all, then, I exhort that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men,
1Ti 2:2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.
1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
1Ti 2:4 who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Notice the reference to "Kings and those in authority". 1 Timothy 2:4 must be taken in context with that. Paul is speaking of "all kinds, nations tongues" not each and every one. How do we know this? Well, for one...

Wrong. And that is where your theological extrapolation takes you, beyond the context into something else. Paul is addressing the fact that the people are not only to pray for those they want to pray for but also for those (like the Roman government, Rulers, et) whom many despised and detested. You completely skip the part where Paul states to pray for 'all men' and then he has to add something. Paul said 'all men' and meant 'all men' and to stress the point, he added a specific group not to be forgotten - The Rulers and Kings over them. They were to intercede on their behalf, to bring supplications to God on their behalf, and pray for them their bitter enemies. God states through Paul that it is pleasing and good for them to do this. Now why? For God desires 'all men' (there is that phrase again - meaning inclusively not exclusively) to be saved to come to the knowledge of truth. But let us not forget the rest of the passage:

1Ti 2:5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Even godly Calvinistic men like C. H. Spurgeon agree that the 'all' in this text means 'all' inclusively and not exclusively.



I would deal with the rest of your post however, do to the fact you have very little understanding of what the non-cal actually believes (as evidenced in the rest of your post), I would be doing more correcting of your misunderstanding and preconcieved notions. It would be a fruitless waist of time to go into that much depth and a derailing of the thread. I would suggest you read a little more of what non-cals say they believe and less about what Cals states non-cals believe.

Example - We do not believe 'all' always means 'all' in the inclusive sense.

Example - Some but not all nor the majority hold that God had to look down the corridors of time to know who would believe. When God determined of Himself to bring salvation through faith, He knew at the same time all who were of faith that are to be saved.

God's foreknowledge or better knowledge works in conjunction with His will.

Example: we believe it was God's sovereign choice to save all of whom He has choosen to.

 

[Allan]

Paul doesn't say the slave doesn't have the means to escape, he says he cannot do what he "wants" to do, but instead, does what sin wants him to do.....every single time. That is the point of the analogy. There is not one single thing that is "good" that the slave can do. He always does what sin wants him to do. Romans 7:19 "For the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish."

If one is a slave and can not seperate himself, is one not considered to be absent a means of escape? Yet that is beside the point I was making. That person is bound to the other and the means to escape is not within his own power even if he so desired. It must come from another who is willing to set them free, but even then the slave can 'choose' to remain with his old master. I would suggest a need to look closer at how the OT speaks of slaves to better understand the analogy.

But listen for a second; the analogy is not about mans inability but about mans being bound to sin (thus sold under sin) - or better a continuence in sin. A slave can choose to not do that which his master states but eventually that slave must and will comply with his masters desire. The slave can not live as he wishes but that does not mean he can not do things contrary to his masters wish. Even Paul states :

Rom 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that [it is] good.
Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but [how] to perform that which is good I find not.

Notice Paul is stating that if he does something he knows he shouldn't he agrees the law was right because of his conscience telling him the basic right. Yet he states when he does it, it is no longer he but sin (or the corrupted natural man = flesh) But there is still a battle ongoing in the sinner between right and wrong. The distinction is that though the sinner can not free himself he can desire to be free. This is were your unnderstanding of what Paul is saying and what he is actually declaring (IMO) is breaking down. You say man is unable to desire to be free from sin, yet Paul specifically states in vs 18 (and I noticed you didn't address this part either) "For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out." (ESV).

Man has the 'desire' to do what is right but he does not have the ability to "do" (physically act or live out) it. Why not? Because he is enslaved or bound to the corrupted flesh and is unable to free himself. Thus he cries out who can save me from this body of sin (my master who wont let me go) - Answer: Only Jesus.

The passage is clear. The ones who are given the right to be called children of God, even the ones that believe in His name are "born"
1. not of bloods
2. not of the will of the flesh
3. not of the will of man....

(they are born) of God.

Of course it is quite clear and I agree emphatically that it is.

John brings this theme of being "born", in relation to salvation and the will of God, again in chapter 3. There, Jesus attributes being "born again" to the will of Holy Spirit.

Of course he does because it is the Spirit of God who makes one born again, not we ourselves. No non-cals makes that assertion. The distinction between non-cals and Cals on this (and Cals verses other Cals) is that faith precedes being born again. Not who makes who born again.

The focus of both passages of scripture is on what God does in bringing about this condition of being "born". It rejects any notion that man's "free-will" has anything to do with it.

No, it doesn't but again that is depending on what you mean by 'free-will'.
Do you believe a person who is born again (after the Calvinistic view) is resposible to believe and thus be saved. You know as well as I do that no man is saved apart from faith so when they 'believe' are they not acting upon their will in a free manner.

I understand "free-will" to mean that a human being makes choices based on a "will" that is free from outside influences.

Then you understand only that of Peleganism which is considered heresy even amoung the Non-Cals. Almost no baptist non-cal holds to such an argument. And thus your problem is in your understanding of what we presumably (though not actually) believe.

I say almost only because there might be some off the wall kook out there somewhere just waiting for his 10 minutes of fame on CNN.

Please explain what you mean by "the responsibility of the will" or "limited will".

I mean that the only choices man has are those which God gives him and that man is responsible with what he does with them. Just like the truths God reveals to man whether in nature, His word, the gospel, et.. , Man is responsible for what he does with the truths God gives him. Thus limited will, or more aptly named "Responsibilty of the will".

 

[David Lamb]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: This is funny. I checked in here to see what people were saying about Richard Dawkins and found another CvA debate. I would like to join the fray but alas, I must :sleeping_2: now. Have fun guys!

I am (in a small measure) encouraged that I was not the only one to have expected this thread to be dealing with Creation and that arch-defender of Evolutionism who is disowned by many fellow-evolutiuonists! Perhaps there should be something in the posting rules that says we should make thread titles match the thread. In this case, Creation, Evolution and Richard Dawkins were just part of an illustration used in the OP, not the subject of the thread, yet the title is "Evangelistic atheistic evolutionists, such as Richard Dawkins,"

 

[dragonfly]

It is amazing how a simple Scriptural passage like:

1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
which even a child can understand stirs the calvinists up into a frenzy.

I tell you what. You continue to teach the false theory of calvinism and I will continue to believe the Scripture.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

 

[canadyjd]

If one is a slave and can not seperate himself, is one not considered to be absent a means of escape? .....That person is bound to the other and the means to escape is not within his own power even if he so desired. It must come from another who is willing to set them free,....

Paul is not talking about "escape", he is talking about doing evil or doing good. His point is that sin (the sin master) controls the unbeliever's will. Any "will" he has to do "good" is overpowered by sin. The unbeliever's will, therefore, is not free, but is enslaved to sin.

Of course he does because it is the Spirit of God who makes one born again, not we ourselves. No non-cals makes that assertion. The distinction between non-cals and Cals on this (and Cals verses other Cals) is that faith precedes being born again. Not who makes who born again.

That is a different question from what is answered in the passage. The focus on the passage is the will of God in the salvation of men. That is very clearly stated. As far as I know, there is no passage where the "will of man" is emphasized in salvation. There is at least one passage where the will of man is specifically rejected as the cause of salvation.

Do you believe a person who is born again ..... is resposible to believe and thus be saved. You know as well as I do that no man is saved apart from faith so when they 'believe' are they not acting upon their will in a free manner.

If by "free manner" you mean free from any outside influence, my answer is no.

I will only speak for myself (wheather it is salvation after the "calvinistic view" or not someone else can say?). I believe, because this is what scripture teaches, that God regenerates by Holy Spirit those He has predestined to be His children, according to His grace and the kind intention of His will. That regeneration is according to God's foreknowledge, meaning a "knowing in an intimate relationship" before the foundation of the world, not that God look into time to see who would believe and then "predestined" based on that information.

This "regeneration" is not the same as the indwelling which comes with faith. The regenerated persons will come under conviction, recognize they are sinners, separated and condemned by God.

Holy Spirit will draw them to the gospel. They will believe the truth of Jesus Christ found in the gospel. They will respond with faith, without fail. They appropriate salvation by faith.

They are then indwelt by Holy Spirit as the pledge promise of their future relationship with God in heaven.

Then you understand only that of Peleganism which is considered heresy even amoung the Non-Cals. Almost no baptist non-cal holds to such an argument. And thus your problem is in your understanding of what we presumably (though not actually) believe.

OK, please enlighten me as to what you believe.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

I tell you what. You continue to teach the false theory of calvinism and I will continue to believe the Scripture.

The choice is not between "calvin" and "scripture". The debate is always about what scripture means in the context it was written.

I notice you didn't answer the questions posed to you.

Do you believe all men will be saved since, according to the passage you quoted, God desires all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth?

peace to youraying:

 

[webdog]

The Bible says I have the mind of Christ, therefore I desire all men to be saved, too. This does not mean it will happen, and is a non sequitur.

 

[davidgeminden]

Hi ya all,

Very interesting comments to my opening post. I tried to pack, what I thought was an obvious implication on my part, into my short little piece of babble, but it looks like I will have to expand it some with a little more explicit detail.

​

Very early in our lives common everyday pipsqueaks, like myself, learn to recognize many understood things about everyday communications that occur between people. One of the very first things I learned was that human beings always assume that normal everyday people they communicate with have a free will. This is an understood assumption revealed by the style of our communication and does not need to be explicitly voiced each time we start a conversation with another person. In fact, it is rarely ever mentioned when humans communicate with each other, except when they are talking about subjects such as religion, philosophy, etc. When I started studying the Bible, I found that the style of communicating with human beings that God was using in the Bible is the style that also assumes/implies that human beings have free will. Therefore, God never explicitly states that man has or doe not have free will. That man has free will is clearly implied in the style of communication with human beings that God uses in the majority of the Bible. On a few occasions in the Bible, if one ignores the majority style, does some verses seem to imply that man does not have a free will. I have always found that those few instances can also be easily understood in terms of free will, the free will which is implied/understood in the style of communication with us in the majority of the Bible.


David C. Geminden

 

[Allan]

Paul is not talking about "escape", he is talking about doing evil or doing good. His point is that sin (the sin master) controls the unbeliever's will. Any "will" he has to do "good" is overpowered by sin. The unbeliever's will, therefore, is not free, but is enslaved to sin.

Again, your not listening but trying to tell me what I'm saying when in fact it isn't. Look again at what I stated and please stop trying to argue with a point I'm not making or at least not equating to the premise.

Secondly, there is no scripture in what Paul writes that state sin 'controls' the believers will. That is absolute nonsense and a dilibertate denial of what Paul blatantly declares in verse 18 "For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out" Scripture does not state the sin nature 'controls' the will to the point that man can not desire for or toward that which is true and right, IF man knows of it. You have not and apparently wont acknowledge this verse in passage to which it is a direct reference. In any case, Paul is talking about being bound as a slave and in that illistration no where nor is it a feasable application to presume the slave is so controlled in absolute detail by his master he can't desire for anything else if he know of it. He is so controlled however that regardless of what he wishes to do he has no power (authority or privilage) of himself to do it but is bound to his master. It is about being bound to 'do' the 'will' of your master and not that you have no will of your own. That is skipping the entire aspect of Paul stating "sold under sin", desire to do what is right but not able to, and all the way to "who can save me from this body of sin". Your missing the point because your trying to allow your theology to dicate what scripture should be saying instead of letting the scripture dicate your theology. Look at the context isn't about their 'will' but about 'doing' what the master 'wills' even though yours is in direct disagreement. How can there be a battle in the person if you have no will that struggles against the sin?
As I stated previously; "A slave can choose to not do that which his master states but eventually that slave must and will comply with his masters desire. The slave can not live as he wishes but that does not mean he can not do things contrary to his masters wish"

According to the passages in question; Man has the 'desire' to do what is right but he does not have the ability to "do" (physically act or live out) it. Why not? Because he is enslaved or bound to the corrupted flesh owned by another and therefore must and will eventually comply with his masters desire even agaist his own. Thus man with regard to being 'bound' is unable to free himself - and that is the inability Paul speaks of and not of an inability to will or desire but the inablity to live freely because he is bound and enslaved to another. And so you see this more clearly as Paul cries out who can save me from this body of sin (my master who wont let me go) - Answer: Only Jesus.

Your going to far beyond the intent of the passage and your overlooking or intentionally disregarding that which speaks contrary to your rendition.

Is he a slave to sin? Yes.
Is he bound to obey sin? Yes.
Is he so bound he does not desire he shouldn't do such a things at times? NO!
Is he so enslaved that he has no desire of his own or that he can not desire in opposition to his master's will? NO
Eveb Paul denies this , in stating:

Rom 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that [it is] good.
Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 8:18 For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out

That is a different question from what is answered in the passage.

Again your not listening. I wasn't saying that is what it was about I said the issue in the C/A debates and even amoungst many Cal/Cal is that "faith precedes regeneration".

The focus on the passage is the will of God in the salvation of men. That is very clearly stated. As far as I know, there is no passage where the "will of man" is emphasized in salvation. There is at least one passage where the will of man is specifically rejected as the cause of salvation. If by "free manner" you mean free from any outside influence, my answer is no.

The will of man is emphasized over and over again in scripture regarding the aspects of believe, repent, come unto me, choose you this day, eat, drink, come, et... (However it isn't stated as such such just like the words Trinity, Theology, et..) Thus we see a consistant theme in questions of men and the answer of God - What must I DO? Believe/repent. Thus mans will is able to desire the things of God but has no ability to do them in any meaningful nor sinless way. That is why man is not to 'do' and can not 'do' anything in natural realm (John 6) but the only Godly work is to believe (Rom 3:4-6). However without the work of the Holy Spirit in their life there will be change nor true belief because man of himself can not come to know any spiritual truths unless they are revealed to man by God Himself. Thus man is resposible for the truths God gives him.

Again and as I stated the term 'will of man' is refering to determination. That by his determination on the part of man , man made himself born again. The purpose and principle of the passage is to declare being born again isn't a work of man nor that man can bring about by his own power. Being born again is the action of God Himself toward a man. The passage does not in any manner or fashion reject man's positive acceptance of the choice as the reason for being saved, but in fact reveals the very opposite of your contention in the preceding verse as well as verses like "we are saved (that is salvation right?) through faith, by faith are you saved, believe and you will be saved, et.. If rejection condemns then what do belief do but save?? If mans choice has no weight in the matter then it does not matter for man to believe or reject God. Thus he would be saved by grace alone. Yet God states savlation is BY grace THROUGH faith. It is of note that scripture states without reservation (though you seem to have some) you are only saved IF you will believe. You are justified by faith, you are sanctified by faith, the Holy Spirit is imparted to us through faith, the propitiation of Christs death is imparted to us by faith. (of course it all happens at the moment OF faith and not a process) The causation of mans salvation is God, however God has made man to have a part in this. Though God desires all to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth, He has not willed that all are to be saved even after they know the truth. Why? Because not all will believe (2 Thes 2:10-12) to could save them. Man is resposible and when they reject the truth God reveals to them scripture states "it is for this cause God gave them over" - their rejection and only after their rejection. But to everyone who believes - life eternal. However you can contend all you want against, what is in my opinion, the large majority of scripture. But it appeares to work better to just believe the truth regardless of our theological view and trying to be consistant. With regard to this (whether your or I) I agree with Spurgeon who states in his sermon "Salvation by Knowing the Truth" on 1 Tim 2:3,4

"My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself; for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."
..."

OK, please enlighten me as to what you believe.

How about what the vast majority of the Non-Cals believe?
As I said, you aren't listening but keep repeating the same thing that NNE has made ANY claims about. "If by "free manner" you mean free from any outside influence"? If I might quote from the movie "The Grinch" (with Jim Carrey) where in it he says "What is the deeeal?!"

We do not believe free-will means the absense of or "from any outside influence."
We do not make a decision in a vacuum. Your understanding of the Non-Cal view can be somewhat equated to Dave Hunts understanding of Calvinism. You know just enough to twist it all up, though I'm not saying you're doing it intentionally but the fact remains you are.

 

[pinoybaptist]

It is amazing how a simple Scriptural passage like:

1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
which even a child can understand stirs the calvinists up into a frenzy.

I tell you what. You continue to teach the false theory of calvinism and I will continue to believe the Scripture.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

If you're referring to my reply to your quoted Scriptures, then please know for a certainty that mockery or sarcasm will get you nowhere, dragonfly.
It will only show a flawed character.
To use part of your own words, "even a child understands" that these Scriptures are saying the preaching of the gospel has already been done all over the world even in Paul's times, and that includes the North Pole, the South Pole, the Western Hemisphere, the Eastern Hemisphere, and all points in-between, to all the peoples therein, since the "faith" is obviously the Christian faith, and the Christian faith can come only from the preaching of the gospel, especially the Christian faith of the original church.

Is that right ? Or do you have another interpretation of what these Scriptures mean.

But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. Romans 10:18.

First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. Romans 1:8

Strange but there have been other threads where I confronted Arminians and Semi-Pelagians and "Biblicists" on this board who insist that all men means all men in the same Scripture that you cited, and they all kept silent (to their credit) whereas you resorted to mockery.