Freedom of the Will

[Yeshua1]

My view isn't an issue in this thread. The thread is upon what Edwards wrote. I do not recall Edwards addressing "regeneration" as part of his work on "Freedom of the Will."





Just how is he "enabled?"

According to you and Van, does not the person by nature and volition have "moral authority?"

Isn't that your argument?

But then you state they have to be "enabled."

You constantly attempt to switch horses mid stream and not expect to get wet!

Either stick with your view that humankind is BORN with a nature that is totally capable by innate volition and without the direct and purposed work of God to "accept or reject" Christ, or you must agree that what Edwards wrote was correct - though you haven't read it.



It is YOU who desire to insert "regeneration" into the discussion. Edwards is NOT discussing that topic in "Freedom of the Will."

This is an attempt on your part to detract from the real purpose of what Edwards is stating.

Do you have some construction that the Holy Spirit does not even attend to a person until after conversion and therefore Cornelius couldn't have been under Godly conviction until he heard the message from Peter?



Here is a problem that doesn't need to be addressed in this thread. The new thread would ask if what God "desires" can not be fulfilled, and therefore would God be unsatisfied.

But, that is not for this thread.

The angel didn't tell him how to be saved, that was the message Peter brought. The angel said both Cornelius and the household would in fact be saved. This done days before Peter even arrived on the scene.

Cornelius' "desire to be saved" was unsatisfactorily met by what he was "doing." Just as the Philippian jailor cried out "What must I DO to be saved," it is the nature of one under conviction to look for some way to appease God. Peter's message to Cornelius wasn't of appeasement but of propitiation.

It is remarkable that you and Van are not in more disagreement. Van does not hold that "God knows in his foreknowledge who will believe." Rather, Van holds to some type of general election in which some will come to Christ in their lifetime, and God doesn't presuppose, or extend His foreknowledge to exactly who will or won't be saved in the future.

As you point out, Cornelius is in direct refutation of that view.




You stated earlier, in this post, "That said, once a man hears the preaching of God's word or reads the scriptures, he is enabled to believe God's word if he so chooses to do so."

So, either you must hold that Cornelius was ALREADY capable of belief or he was ENABLED to believe.

You can't have it both ways, Winman.

If you hold that Cornelius was ALREADY capable of belief, then that indicates that the work of the Holy Spirit was already involved - therefore Cornelius was already under the influence of the Holy Spirit.



Not a "silly argument" at all. The question pertains directly to the purpose and work of God. Philip was taken to the desert on purpose. Peter was given a dream on purpose. Paul states that he wanted to go to one place, but God moved him in another direction on purpose.

God moves in the life and living of the believer on purpose, both before and after conversion.

There is not one person that God gives to the Son that will go unsaved. That is the point of the statement.




Agreed.



Again, you are mixing regeneration into the topic of the thread.

Spout all you want that I am resting upon the philosophy of men and you upon Scriptures, but those reading the thread will see that I have taken the Scriptures YOU offered and shown how they do not support your view.

You want to rely upon Scriptures - that is all well and good. But at least get the proper meaning and intent!

Cornelius is a great example that supports what Edwards wrote.

Read with comprehension the work of Edwards on "The Freedom of the Will." You might be surprised on what you two would agree.

As far as "philosophy" compared to a view based on Scripture, I posted about a third of the Scriptures that Edwards used in his writing. It would seem that if one is going to spout who posts Scriptures, then they would actually read what is supported by an abundant amount of Scriptures rather than attempt to refute someone they claim doesn't use Scriptures.

Read the work, Winman.

The OP states that I hadn't read it in a long time. I hope you actually will take the time to read with comprehension (not just scanning) what Edwards wrote.

Question for both of them is why would the lord, as per their theology, desire to save all, Jesus died and atoned for all, yet God lives the final basis for salvation on "human free will?"

Doesn't logic dictate that God, who vested the death of His Son to secure a real atonement for sins, so thatall those who Jesus died to atone for would actually get saved by that act?

 

[Winman]

My view isn't an issue in this thread. The thread is upon what Edwards wrote. I do not recall Edwards addressing "regeneration" as part of his work on "Freedom of the Will."

Well, he does, on page 81;

Corol. 3. Hence all arguments of Arminians, who own God’s omniscience, against the doctrine of the inability of unregenerate men to perform the conditions of salvation, and the commands of Godrequiring spiritual duties, and against the Calvinistic doctrine of efficacious grace; on this ground,that those doctrines, though they do not suppose men to be under any constraint or coaction, yet suppose them under Necessity, must fall to the ground

Just how is he "enabled?"

By knowledge, by being taught from the word of God, precisely what Jesus taught in John 6:44-45

Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Calvinists love John 6:44 because they insist it supports their doctrine that a man must be supernaturally regenerated to even will to come to Jesus, but they conveniently omit verse 45 which explains exactly how men are drawn to Jesus. Jesus here says those that are "taught" are those who come to him, those who have heard and learned from the Father. And how do we hear and learn from the Father? By either listening to the preaching of God's word, or reading God's word.

This is exactly what Paul shows in Romans 10;

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Here Paul directly asks HOW can a man believe in Jesus. Does he ask how shall he believe unless he has been supernaturally regenerated? NO, he asks very simply how can he believe in whom he has not HEARD.

But the Calvinist will object and say the unregenerate man is unable to hear. Paul answers that in his next question, he asks "and HOW shall they hear without a preacher?". Did he say a man must be regenerated to have the ability to hear? NO, they simply need a preacher to come and preach the gospel.

So, no man is born with the knowledge of the true God and the gospel of Jesus Christ. What men lack is KNOWLEDGE, not ability. Once a preacher comes and preaches the gospel to any man, that man is enabled to believe if he will only attend to the word of God, listen to it and take careful heed to it. That is all within his natural innate abilities given to him by God.

According to you and Van, does not the person by nature and volition have "moral authority?"

Isn't that your argument?

That is what Edwards said too, he said men are "moral agents" knowing right from wrong and able to choose between the two.

But then you state they have to be "enabled."

You constantly attempt to switch horses mid stream and not expect to get wet!

No I'm not. No man can believe what he has never heard and does not know. This is what the Bible teaches, Jesus said a man must hear and learn from the Father to come to him, he must be taught. Paul said a man must HEAR the gospel to believe. There is nothing complicated about this.

Neither Jesus nor Paul said a man must be supernaturally regenerated to believe. You can't show it.

Either stick with your view that humankind is BORN with a nature that is totally capable by innate volition and without the direct and purposed work of God to "accept or reject" Christ, or you must agree that what Edwards wrote was correct - though you haven't read it.

This is a silly argument. Men are born knowing almost nothing. A newborn baby does not know the alphabet, does that mean he does not have the ability to learn? Total nonsense and shows the desperation of your argument.

It is YOU who desire to insert "regeneration" into the discussion. Edwards is NOT discussing that topic in "Freedom of the Will."

Well, he does on page 81 as I have shown you.

This is an attempt on your part to detract from the real purpose of what Edwards is stating.

I understand Edwards argument. He believes a man will always perform his greatest desire, therefore having a fallen nature he will always desire against God. I get it, I simply disagree with it, and so does Paul;

Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

Boom! This argument of Calvinism is destroyed by Paul himself. Does he say here he always does his greatest desire? NO, he says "but what I hate, that do I". Edwards argument is crushed by Paul himself, a man does not always do his greatest desire.

Do you have some construction that the Holy Spirit does not even attend to a person until after conversion and therefore Cornelius couldn't have been under Godly conviction until he heard the message from Peter?

No, Jesus said the Holy Spirit would reprove "the world" of sin. The Holy Spirit absolutely refutes and convicts lost unregenerate persons. It is you that denies the Holy Spirit is able to do this, you believe a man must be regenerated before the Holy Spirit can bring him to conviction and repentance.

 

[Winman]

Here is a problem that doesn't need to be addressed in this thread. The new thread would ask if what God "desires" can not be fulfilled, and therefore would God be unsatisfied.

But, that is not for this thread.

Jesus directly said he wanted to gather the children of Jerusalem as a hen gathers her chicks and they WOULD NOT. He didn't say they "could not".

The angel didn't tell him how to be saved, that was the message Peter brought. The angel said both Cornelius and the household would in fact be saved. This done days before Peter even arrived on the scene.

OK, so what? I believe in God's foreknowledge. God knows before we are born whether we will believe or not. I showed John 6:65 to support this. That doesn't mean God caused Cornelius to believe.

Cornelius' "desire to be saved" was unsatisfactorily met by what he was "doing." Just as the Philippian jailor cried out "What must I DO to be saved," it is the nature of one under conviction to look for some way to appease God. Peter's message to Cornelius wasn't of appeasement but of propitiation.

God was not offended at Cornelius, God heard his prayers and recognized his good works, both the angel and Peter said so.

Acts 10:4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

You don't get it, your doctrine teaches that unregenerate men cannot believe, and cannot do anything acceptable to God, I am proving your view to be error. Cornelius was not saved, and he did not have the Holy Spirit, so according to Romans 8:9 he was not regenerated, yet he had the ability to believe in God, and he had the ability to do good works that were acceptable to God. You simply refuse to believe what the scriptures clearly say. I am not making this up, look in your own Bible and see for yourself.

Either the Bible is wrong, or Calvinism is wrong, take your pick.

It is remarkable that you and Van are not in more disagreement. Van does not hold that "God knows in his foreknowledge who will believe." Rather, Van holds to some type of general election in which some will come to Christ in their lifetime, and God doesn't presuppose, or extend His foreknowledge to exactly who will or won't be saved in the future.

As you point out, Cornelius is in direct refutation of that view.

Yes, Van and I do not completely agree, he does not believe in my view of foreknowledge, though many do. It is quite orthodox among non-Calvinists and Arminians.

I also disagree about the thorny soil and the rocky soil being lost. It does not say they were lost, it says they did not bear fruit. Not the same. Both sprang up, which is life. Both believed, and anyone who believes is saved.

So, we do not perfectly agree.

You stated earlier, in this post, "That said, once a man hears the preaching of God's word or reads the scriptures, he is enabled to believe God's word if he so chooses to do so."

So, either you must hold that Cornelius was ALREADY capable of belief or he was ENABLED to believe.

You can't have it both ways, Winman.

What nonsense. You had the ability to believe in many things before you actually heard of them and believed them. Did you have to be supernaturally regenerated to believe that George Washington was our first President? So this is an utterly ridiculous argument from you.

If you hold that Cornelius was ALREADY capable of belief, then that indicates that the work of the Holy Spirit was already involved - therefore Cornelius was already under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Men are born with the ability to believe. Jesus himself shows this.

Jhn 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.


Jesus here shows a man can believe in God, but not believe in him. Men have the ability to believe.

Jam 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

James, speaking to false professors says they believe in God. Does he say this is wrong? NO, he says "thou doest well". Men have the ability to believe in God, but not believe in Christ. Cornelius sincerely believed in God, but he did not know of Jesus, therefore he could not believe in something he did not know. But once he heard of Jesus he was able to either believe on him or not. He chose to believe and was saved.

Not a "silly argument" at all. The question pertains directly to the purpose and work of God. Philip was taken to the desert on purpose. Peter was given a dream on purpose. Paul states that he wanted to go to one place, but God moved him in another direction on purpose.

God moves in the life and living of the believer on purpose, both before and after conversion.

There is not one person that God gives to the Son that will go unsaved. That is the point of the statement.

God the Father gives those whom he sees in his foreknowledge who will believe to Jesus. We are chosen "in him" before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4), but no man is "in Christ" until he believes in time (Rom 16:7)

Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Paul shows we are "in Christ" in time, Andronicus and Junia believed and were "in Christ" before Paul.

So, if we are only placed "in Christ" in time, how could God choose us "in him" before the foundation of the world? Simple, FOREKNOWLEDGE.

The only reason this gives you a problem is because Calvinism refuses to believe God can know who will believe before they do so and elects these persons. But that is what 1 Peter 1:2 shows.

Agreed.


Again, you are mixing regeneration into the topic of the thread.

Spout all you want that I am resting upon the philosophy of men and you upon Scriptures, but those reading the thread will see that I have taken the Scriptures YOU offered and shown how they do not support your view.

You want to rely upon Scriptures - that is all well and good. But at least get the proper meaning and intent!

Cornelius is a great example that supports what Edwards wrote.

Read with comprehension the work of Edwards on "The Freedom of the Will." You might be surprised on what you two would agree.

As far as "philosophy" compared to a view based on Scripture, I posted about a third of the Scriptures that Edwards used in his writing. It would seem that if one is going to spout who posts Scriptures, then they would actually read what is supported by an abundant amount of Scriptures rather than attempt to refute someone they claim doesn't use Scriptures.

Read the work, Winman.

The OP states that I hadn't read it in a long time. I hope you actually will take the time to read with comprehension (not just scanning) what Edwards wrote.

I skipped over all that. Man, you need to lighten up. Posting ridiculously long posts does not prove you are correct, just as Edwards is not necessarily correct because he takes 1000 words to say something that takes 10 words.

False doctrine is false, no matter how many words you choose to use.

Shorten it up.

 

[Winman]

Agedman

I am not going to continue to answer your excessively long posts. I have tried to be polite and answer you, but your posts are WAY TOO LONG.

I had to divide that last answer in two, because you can only post so many words.

Again, I will simply refuse to answer if you insist on such long posts.

Many words does not prove you are correct.

 

[agedman]

Agedman

I am not going to continue to answer your excessively long posts. I have tried to be polite and answer you, but your posts are WAY TOO LONG.

I had to divide that last answer in two, because you can only post so many words.

Again, I will simply refuse to answer if you insist on such long posts.

Many words does not prove you are correct.

This from a guy who take TWO full posts to respond!

Your quote of Edwards

"... Hence all arguments of Arminians, who own God’s omniscience, against the doctrine of the inability of unregenerate men to perform the conditions of salvation, and the commands of God requiring spiritual duties, and against the Calvinistic doctrine of efficacious grace;..."
​

as justification for you discussing "regeneration" is absurd.

Unregenerate men are unsaved men - This is just another indication of the extreme lengths you go in trying to prove or disprove.

More to the point.

If you are so radically opposed to Van's views, why is it that you don't stand against that which he posts, but take every opportunity to chime in support even of that which you proclaim here to disagree.

I never stated God was "offended" by Cornelius, but that "Cornelius' "desire to be saved" was unsatisfactorily met by what he was "doing.""


You go back and retread on the same ground of confusion by writing,

"What men lack is KNOWLEDGE, not ability. Once a preacher comes and preaches the gospel to any man, that man is enabled to believe if he will only attend to the word of God, listen to it and take careful heed to it. That is all within his natural innate abilities given to him by God."
​

And you accuse Edwards???? At least he is precise in exactly what is it that God enables and what the "natural innate abilities" of humankind!

You insert this tidbit of understanding,

"The only reason this gives you a problem is because Calvinism refuses to believe God can know who will believe before they do so and elects these persons. But that is what 1 Peter 1:2 shows."
​

Either you have had a brain freeze, or are truly lacking in Calvinistic thinking. I am not going to spend time on this statement - it is wrong and misguided.

This statement by you,

"Men are born knowing almost nothing. A newborn baby does not know the alphabet, does that mean he does not have the ability to learn? Total nonsense and shows the desperation of your argument."
​

I am not in any state of desperation that may be your own condition - I don't know.

Your example of the "ability to learn" does not give credence to or support of the refutation of Edwards. He acknowledges such ability.


Your statement,

"I understand Edwards argument. He believes a man will always perform his greatest desire, therefore having a fallen nature he will always desire against God. I get it, I simply disagree with it, and so does Paul;

Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I."
​

Edwards is making such a statement in the light of the fallen nature, not in the relationship of the fallen natures war with the new nature.

Again, the above is another example of partial reading without clear comprehension. It is selecting a part and constructing a false premise from an argument that does not exist in what is referred.



And you start your two post dialogue with this,

"No, Jesus said the Holy Spirit would reprove "the world" of sin. The Holy Spirit absolutely refutes and convicts lost unregenerate persons. It is you that denies the Holy Spirit is able to do this, you believe a man must be regenerated before the Holy Spirit can bring him to conviction and repentance."
​

Did you not state that a person is not "regenerated" until AFTER belief?

Perhaps you define "regeneration" as something other than that which is was living and now dead being made alive again. If you do, please define it as YOU use the term.

I have made NO statement that would dispute that the work of the Holy Spirit as Christ gave.

This is just a point in which you attempt to move the argument away from Edwards to a topic in which Edwards was not discussing.

 

[Winman]

This from a guy who take TWO full posts to respond!

That's because you ask so many questions! When I answer them, then the entire post became so long I had to divide it in two!

Your quote of Edwards

"... Hence all arguments of Arminians, who own God’s omniscience, against the doctrine of the inability of unregenerate men to perform the conditions of salvation, and the commands of God requiring spiritual duties, and against the Calvinistic doctrine of efficacious grace;..."
​

as justification for you discussing "regeneration" is absurd.

Unregenerate men are unsaved men - This is just another indication of the extreme lengths you go in trying to prove or disprove.

No, he said the INABILITY of UNREGENERATE MEN.

More to the point.

If you are so radically opposed to Van's views, why is it that you don't stand against that which he posts, but take every opportunity to chime in support even of that which you proclaim here to disagree.

I have in fact told Van many times I do not agree with his interpretation of the soils. I have also said that everyone who believes is saved, Van casts doubt on that.

I never stated God was "offended" by Cornelius, but that "Cornelius' "desire to be saved" was unsatisfactorily met by what he was "doing.""

Well, no man can save himself through works, but Cornelius's works were a result of his great faith in God, and so God recognized his works and sent an angel to tell him how to be saved. And that is the point, unregenerate men are able to believe and do righteous works.

You go back and retread on the same ground of confusion by writing,

"What men lack is KNOWLEDGE, not ability. Once a preacher comes and preaches the gospel to any man, that man is enabled to believe if he will only attend to the word of God, listen to it and take careful heed to it. That is all within his natural innate abilities given to him by God."
​

And you accuse Edwards???? At least he is precise in exactly what is it that God enables and what the "natural innate abilities" of humankind!

What men lack IS knowledge. That is why Paul asked HOW can a man believe in Jesus unless he has HEARD of him. Did he ask how a man shall believe unless he is supernaturally regenerated? NO, and Paul never says that anywhere in scripture.

You insert this tidbit of understanding,

"The only reason this gives you a problem is because Calvinism refuses to believe God can know who will believe before they do so and elects these persons. But that is what 1 Peter 1:2 shows."
​

Either you have had a brain freeze, or are truly lacking in Calvinistic thinking. I am not going to spend time on this statement - it is wrong and misguided.

Calvinists insist God does not choose anyone on the basis of foreseen faith.

This statement by you,

"Men are born knowing almost nothing. A newborn baby does not know the alphabet, does that mean he does not have the ability to learn? Total nonsense and shows the desperation of your argument."
​

I am not in any state of desperation that may be your own condition - I don't know.

Your example of the "ability to learn" does not give credence to or support of the refutation of Edwards. He acknowledges such ability.

I was answering YOUR objection, I do not recall Edwards presenting any objection to me.

Your statement,

"I understand Edwards argument. He believes a man will always perform his greatest desire, therefore having a fallen nature he will always desire against God. I get it, I simply disagree with it, and so does Paul;

Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I."
​

Edwards is making such a statement in the light of the fallen nature, not in the relationship of the fallen natures war with the new nature.

Again, the above is another example of partial reading without clear comprehension. It is selecting a part and constructing a false premise from an argument that does not exist in what is referred.

Give me a break, I have seen Calvinists say dozens of times that men are enslaved to their fallen nature and therefore MUST choose against God. Edwards makes the same argument.

And you start your two post dialogue with this,

"No, Jesus said the Holy Spirit would reprove "the world" of sin. The Holy Spirit absolutely refutes and convicts lost unregenerate persons. It is you that denies the Holy Spirit is able to do this, you believe a man must be regenerated before the Holy Spirit can bring him to conviction and repentance."
​

Did you not state that a person is not "regenerated" until AFTER belief?

Perhaps you define "regeneration" as something other than that which is was living and now dead being made alive again. If you do, please define it as YOU use the term.

The Holy Spirit will reprove "the world". That term is speaking of lost, unregenerate persons. Therefore unregenerate men can be convicted by the Holy Spirit.

I have made NO statement that would dispute that the work of the Holy Spirit as Christ gave.

Give me a break, you and other Calvinists constantly use Lazarus as your analogy that God must make a man alive before he can respond. But Lazarus heard Jesus when he was dead, not alive.

Jhn 11:44 And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.

Jesus can speak to the dead, therefore the dead can hear Jesus.

Jhn 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Did Jesus say "the living" shall hear his voice? NO, Jesus said "the dead" shall hear his voice, and those that hear shall live.

Luk 7:15 And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother.

The scriptures say a body without the spirit is dead. When Jesus spoke to the maiden, she was dead, but her spirit returned to her.

Luk 8:54 And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise.
55 And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat.

This is just a point in which you attempt to move the argument away from Edwards to a topic in which Edwards was not discussing.

Edwards is dead, I am not debating Edwards, I am debating you. If you want me to debate Edwards, show ONE specific point he made and I will address that ONE point. Let's go one point at a time, not dozens to keep it short.

 

[saturneptune]

It would have been wiser for you to have taken time to actually read with comprehension what Edwards wrote, rather than relying upon "Cliff note" versions.

You did presume that Edwards wrote totally from a "Calvinistic view," and you do seem surprised that you find that some his statements may actually challenge that view. Perhaps if you actually read what he wrote, you would find more such areas.

Edwards was no parrot, nor did he have a stunted intellect that obliged him to "follow the party line" so to speak.

You would do well to actually read in total what he wrote.



If you had read in total what he wrote - not just what I copied and pasted, you would see exactly why he did not use the typical broad "dictionary definition(s)" but used words that he would narrow the definition so that no one would take liberty with the statements by turning the definition to something other than he specified. Edwards wanted to make certain that in every point, not one person could take license with his writing.




But do you not see that it is a perfect example. Lazarus - had he moral authority (as did the Lord Jesus Christ) - would certainly have had the ability to raise himself - or demand that God raise him for he would have been morally equal to God.

But more, it would seem you want to redefine "moral ability" to moral choice which (in this matter), but then in application you put moral ability as being able to choose between life and death - without the attention of God to the matter. That is why Lazarus is a prime example of the failure of your view.




Paul states, "For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death."

Can a person without God, without the purposed intervention of God, have of their own volition "sorrow according to the will of God?" The Scripture does not support that thinking. What the Scriptures clearly teach is:

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
​

It is God's word that is able to divide the soul and spirit. NOT human manipulation. If God wants someone saved, they will be saved.

The Scriptures state:

Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. 26“But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. 27“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29“My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30“I and the Father are one.”
​

Being deceived is NOT the same as being unsaved. Christ is addressing the followers - later John chariots a similar theme: "These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you."

But more, your application is attempting to make the words apply to the unsaved.

The unsaved are deceived already. That they follow deceivers is part and parcel of the fallen nature. "There is THEREFORE no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus..." This verse in contrast to what Christ Jesus states, "Those that believe not are condemned ALREADY..."

You are the one mixing apples and oranges in taking what was clearly stated to the followers and attempting to make it apply to the unbelievers.



No, Winman, he doesn't "apply his own definitions to the words" but is using terms and clarifying the precise parameters of which the words were to be applied to his work.

That you or some other do not like the structure that he constructs attends more to your inability than his ability. (to use what the theme of the post )



Which, if you have read with comprehension the total, he is in total agreement with the Scriptures - again note the precise definition of the wording that he is working.



Again, Wiman, you are using words spoken by Christ to His followers and applicable to the current followers (believers). He was NOT addressing those who were not his followers.

What care do the heathen lost have if they are more deceived than the deceit in which they by nature abide. It will make them no more lost than the condemnation in which they already abide.

Your argument at this point is not foundational.



Everyone NOTE - Winman admits that it is NOT moral ability as he would attempt to decree, but the DIRECT and PURPOSED work "by the Word of God and the conviction of the Holy Spirit."

This statement alone, shows that Winman does not support his own claim that humankind have by their own volition the natural moral authority and capability to enter or be kept from heaven.

If you want to write a novel, suggest you hire a publisher.

 

[agedman]

No, he said the INABILITY of UNREGENERATE MEN.

Again, unregenerate men are lost. They are NOT saved.

Do you hold that a believer can be unregenerate?

Well, no man can save himself through works, but Cornelius's works were a result of his great faith in God, and so God recognized his works and sent an angel to tell him how to be saved. And that is the point, unregenerate men are able to believe and do righteous works.

Again, the angel did not tell Cornelius "how to be saved." The angel told Cornelius that he and his whole household would be saved. He was told this information many days BEFORE Peter arrived.

What men lack IS knowledge. That is why Paul asked HOW can a man believe in Jesus unless he has HEARD of him. Did he ask how a man shall believe unless he is supernaturally regenerated? NO, and Paul never says that anywhere in scripture.

There are two times "regeneration is used"

Matthew 19:

27Then Peter said to Him, “Behold, we have left everything and followed You; what then will there be for us?” 28And Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
​

Which is stating how Christ will be made alive again and will be glorified again, and so will the apostles.

And Titus 3:

3For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. 4But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, 5He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
​

Titus basically views regeneration and salvation as one in the same.

Calvinists insist God does not choose anyone on the basis of foreseen faith.

CERTAINLY they don't.

God doesn't rely upon who will and won't believe to determine whom He has decreed salvation.

That is mixing human volition and some human authority over God.

Belief that human volition is in direct opposition to Titus 3.

Give me a break, I have seen Calvinists say dozens of times that men are enslaved to their fallen nature and therefore MUST choose against God. Edwards makes the same argument.

Sure he does.

What YOU are doing is taking a statement by a believer (Paul) in which he is showing the war between the old nature and new creature and making the condition apply to all unsaved. Paul was NOT unsaved, nor can the Roman's passage be taken as written to the unsaved.

The Scriptures are clear that the proclivity of the fallen is to choose what is fallen. Because the unsaved have NO new creation which is sustained by the power of God, they are as Titus states, "...foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another."

It is this matter that Edwards has as part of his writing address.

The Holy Spirit will reprove "the world". That term is speaking of lost, unregenerate persons. Therefore unregenerate men can be convicted by the Holy Spirit.

Certainly they can.

However conviction does not equal salvation.

Any parent has experienced the attitude of a child that is sorry for getting caught in comparison to that child who is truly repentant.

Give me a break, you and other Calvinists constantly use Lazarus as your analogy that God must make a man alive before he can respond. But Lazarus heard Jesus when he was dead, not alive.

Jhn 11:44 And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.

Jesus can speak to the dead, therefore the dead can hear Jesus.

Jhn 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Did Jesus say "the living" shall hear his voice? NO, Jesus said "the dead" shall hear his voice, and those that hear shall live.

Luk 7:15 And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother.

The scriptures say a body without the spirit is dead. When Jesus spoke to the maiden, she was dead, but her spirit returned to her.

Luk 8:54 And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise.
55 And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat.

Certainly, again conviction does not equal salvation. Conviction means that the guilty are judged.

I will take time to illustrate.

A criminal is being questioned. They admit to the crime but show no remorse. That is the condition of the world unregenerate who hears a message, knows they have violated God's standards, but leaves angry and unrepentant. They are sorry they got caught, and make plans for not being caught again. There is no true repentance. No change of the heart.

However, the person in whom God has decreed for salvation (from the foundation of the world - for he knew who would and wouldn't believe - as you pointed out) will be regenerated (saved). That conviction leads to repentance.

Edwards is dead, I am not debating Edwards, I am debating you. If you want me to debate Edwards, show ONE specific point he made and I will address that ONE point. Let's go one point at a time, not dozens to keep it short.

I did that.

You griped that the length of the quote was too wordy for your liking.

 

[Winman]

Your posts are WAY too long. So I am only going to answer a few of your questions/statements.

Again, the angel did not tell Cornelius "how to be saved." The angel told Cornelius that he and his whole household would be saved. He was told this information many days BEFORE Peter arrived.

Again, so what? I told you already that God knows who will believe. That doesn't mean that God causes anyone to believe. God knew Cornelius would be saved before the foundation of the world.

Titus basically views regeneration and salvation as one in the same.

They are the same, but many Calvinists like R.C. Sproul believe a person can be regenerated for YEARS before they believe on Christ and are saved.

No one can be saved until their sins are forgiven, and no one is forgiven until they first believe, therefore no one can be regenerated until they first believe.

Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Colossians 2:13 shows exactly what to be regenerated or "quickened" means, it means to be forgiven all our trespasses. It is sin that causes spiritual death, therefore sin must be washed away to be spiritually alive. No one has their sins washed away and forgiven until they first believe, we are justified by faith.

Now that is enough for one post. You continue to believe that if you write ridiculously long posts that somehow that proves you are right. It does not.

 

[The Biblicist]

By knowledge, by being taught from the word of God, precisely what Jesus taught in John 6:44-45

Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Calvinists love John 6:44 because they insist it supports their doctrine that a man must be supernaturally regenerated to even will to come to Jesus, but they conveniently omit verse 45 which explains exactly how men are drawn to Jesus. Jesus here says those that are "taught" are those who come to him, those who have heard and learned from the Father. And how do we hear and learn from the Father? By either listening to the preaching of God's word, or reading God's word.

The Father is the one doing the teaching here not some human preacher as your interpretation of this text must insert and demand. This is an INTERNALIZED instruction by the Father not some EXTERNALIZED act by some preacher. However, your position requires inserting a human instructer here when none is inserted in the text by Christ. The sole instructor under consideration is the Father and this is an internalized instruction.

Furthermore, you fail to distingusih between the scripture quotation by Christ and the scripture explanation by Christ as you pit one against the other. The scripture quotation by Christ does not provide for any exceptions as "all" is comprehensive without exception. Neither does Christ's explanation of the text provide for any exceptions as "everyone" in his explanation is a translation of the very exact same Greek word translated "all" in the scripture quotation. Both the "all" in the quotation and the "every man" in the explanation are PASSIVE rather than active participants in this instruction.

However, your explanation requires exceptions. Indeed, your interpretation denies that the comprehensive "all" and "every man" taught comes but Christ's explanation demands that the same comprehensive "all" and "every man" taught is what comes without exception. It is this internalized teaching by the Father that produces the act of coming and that is precisely why "ALL" and "EVERY MAN" thus taught does come.

You INSERT your exception by making those taught ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS in this instruction whereas the scripture quotation presents them as PASSIVE recipients of the Fathers instruction. You make "and learn" a CONDITIONAL active response rather than a description of what it means to be "taught." Both "heard" and "learned" are PASSIVE rather than active responses and neither are presented as CONDITIONS that call for ACTIVE responses by those being taught but are explanatory CHARACTERIZATIONS of what it means to be taught by the Father which produces coming to the Son. No person can claim to be taught anything if they have not both "heard" and "learned." No teacher can claim he has taught anyone who either has not "heard" his instruction or "learnerd" from him. These are necessary explanations of what it means to be taught rather than CONDITIONS required by ACTIVE participation of those being taught. There is no ACTIVE verbs here only PASSIVE. You must make the participants ACTIVE and PARTICIPANTS for your intepretation to stand while the only ACTOR and ACTION is the Father's not the objects.

This kind of interpretational gymnastics characterizes the interpretations by all of you (Van, Skandalon, Winman.) of John 6:44-45.

This is exactly what Paul shows in Romans 10;

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Here Paul directly asks HOW can a man believe in Jesus. Does he ask how shall he believe unless he has been supernaturally regenerated? NO, he asks very simply how can he believe in whom he has not HEARD.

Here you confuse what Paul distinguishes in Romans 10:14-17. No one denies that God uses the EXTERNAL TEACHER/PREACHER but the problem is INTERNAL and no amount of EXTERNAL preaching will resolve that problem. If it could then everyone exposed to EXTERNAL preaching/teaching would be saved. So even your position must ADD to the external preaching of God's Word the power of the Holy Spirit. Romans 10:17 does exactly that. The Greek word translated "word" is not the normal "logos" which simply refers to visualized or verbalized expressions of thought. It is the Greek "rhema" which is used for COMMANDS.

This internalized instruction by the Holy Spirit is presented exactly that way as an EMPOWERED WORD OF COMMAND:

2 Cor. 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

So faith cometh by hearing, but the kind of hearing required for faith is by the SUPERNATURALLY EMPOWERED COMMAND by God - Rom. 10:17 - or the kind of command seen in Genesis 1:3 where God's power is behind the words spoken so that something comes into existence that had no previous existence to that empowered word.

This is the kind of "heard" that is produced when God teaches a man internally (Jn. 6:45b) as it supernaturally imparts knowledge removing the internal darkness and thus "all" taught equals all "heard and...learned" from the Father that is the cause of coming to Christ in faith.

This internalized empowering that produces the hearing ear is regeneration or the work of God calling light into existence within His elect which effectually displaces the inner darkness and that light is the revelation of Jesus Christ which is solely an act of God that is not the result of every time an external preacher/teaches proclaims the gospel.

Again, the object of this enlightenment/knowledge is not an active participant in this work in 2 Cor. 4:6 nor is the preacher (2 Cor. 4:7). That is precisely the same case in John 6:44-45 as the ONLY active Person in John 6:44-45 is the Father. There are no conditions being set forth that require ACTIVE PARTICIPATION in the work of drawing or teaching as these are solely the acts of the Father while in both cases the ones being drawn and taught are PASSIVE as NO ACTIVE VERBS or CONDITIONAL clauses can be found but that is precisely what you must insert and do insert by your interpetation. That is called eisgesis not exegesis.

 

[Winman]

You INSERT your exception by making those taught ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS in this instruction whereas the scripture quotation presents them as PASSIVE recipients of the Fathers instruction. You make "and learn" a CONDITIONAL active response rather than a description of what it means to be "taught." Both "heard" and "learned" are PASSIVE rather than active responses and neither are presented as CONDITIONS that call for ACTIVE responses by those being taught but are CHARACTERIZATIONS of what it means to be taught by the Father which produces coming to the Son.

It is not me that makes men an active participant, it is Jesus who says that in MANY places in scripture.

Jhn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

It takes two to tango. Even the best teacher cannot teach someone who is unwilling to learn. The teaching is provided by the Father, but the hearing and learning must be performed by the recipient of that teaching.

Mar 4:24 And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given.
25 For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.

After the parable of the soils, the disciples asked Jesus what it meant. They did not understand this parable any better than the rest of the people. Jesus then carefully explained the parable to them.

The difference between the disciples and those that did not understand was not that the disciples were supernaturally regenerated to understand, the difference was that they sought out Jesus afterward and desired that he explain the parable to them. They did not disregard Jesus's teaching because it was difficult to understand, they knew it was important, and so they went to him and asked him to explain it. This is the difference.

And finally, after explaining the parable of the soils, Jesus tells his disciples to "take heed what ye hear". This shows that the responsibility of hearing and learning rests on the student, not the teacher. Jesus explains that to those who willingly hear, and have an attitude that wants to learn, to these persons more will be given. But to those who are careless and disregard his teachings, to them even what was given shall be taken away.

So, the scriptures do not teach that God force feeds a person knowledge. No, the person has to be a willing active participant to learn from the Father.

Here you confuse what Paul distinguishes in Romans 10:14-17. No one denies that God uses the EXTERNAL TEACHER/PREACHER but the problem is INTERNAL and no amount of EXTERNAL preaching will resolve that problem. If it could then everyone exposed to EXTERNAL preaching/teaching would be saved. So even your position must ADD to the external preaching of God's Word the power of the Holy Spirit. Romans 10:17 does exactly that. The Greek word translated "word" is not the normal "logos" which simply refers to visualized or verbalized expressions of thought. It is the Greek "rhema" which is used for COMMANDS.

This argument is plain silly and illogical. Any teacher will tell you students learn differently. The teacher gives the same instructions and lessons to all students. Some pay diligent attention, study and do their homework and learn much, while others goof off in class, refuse to study and do their homework, and fail miserably.

Jesus spoke the same words to all. Sometimes they were very difficult to understand. Those who did not care went their way. But those who believed Jesus was the Son of God pursued after him and asked him to explain his words to them. And Jesus told these persons what his words mean.

Your view is easily refuted by scripture.

Pro 1:32 For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them.
33 But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.

Those who refuse to learn will be destroyed, but those who listen to God and learn will dwell safely.

 

[The Biblicist]

Jesus directly said he wanted to gather the children of Jerusalem as a hen gathers her chicks and they WOULD NOT. He didn't say they "could not".

This response is inexcusable. You know very well that "could not" is the necessary consequence of an unwilling disposition as in Romans 8:7 it is the unwilling disposition which "IS" enmity and "IS NOT" subject to the law of God that NECESSARILY RESULTS in "neither indeed CAN be." So they as long as they "would not" they "could not" until that ruling contrary disposition is changed.

OK, so what? I believe in God's foreknowledge. God knows before we are born whether we will believe or not. I showed John 6:65 to support this. That doesn't mean God caused Cornelius to believe.

Foreknowlege is based upon God's eternal purpose not vice versa as Romans 8:28-29 proves. Foreknowledge (v. 29) follows God's "purpose" (v. 28).

Second, John 6:65 has NOTHING to do with God's foreknowlege as it is merely the repetition of John 6:44 which has NOTHING to do with God's foreknowledge. Neither does John 6:64 have anything to do with God's foreknowledge but with God's omnscience. He knew omnisciently from the beginning who were the true and false professors among his disciples including Judas who was a "devil" from the very beginning.

John 6:65 replaces the word "draw" with the word "given" and "given" refers to faith in verse 64 which those false professors were without. That is what drawing by the Father does it gives "faith" and that is why ALL who are drawn come to Christ just as ALL who are taught come to Christ. Don't bother denying this as my former post destroyed your false interpretation of John 6:45 and your eisgetical insertion of external teachers, conditional active participation by those being taught.

God was not offended at Cornelius, God heard his prayers and recognized his good works, both the angel and Peter said so.

Prior to Peter going to his house God said he had already "cleansed" him and Peter acknowledge as soon as he came through the door that God had already "accepted" them. The word "saved" does not always refer to initial salvation as in regeneration and gospel conversion as they already were believers in the Old Testament anticipatory gospel (Acts 10:43). "Saved" here refers to the usefulness of their lives in the service of God or with water baptism, church membership and active obedience to God's way of service.

You quote the very verses that prove He already had been accepted by God and cleansed by God before Peter ever came through the door:


Acts 10:4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

I also disagree about the thorny soil and the rocky soil being lost. It does not say they were lost, it says they did not bear fruit. Not the same. Both sprang up, which is life. Both believed, and anyone who believes is saved.

Neither does it say they "believed"! They "received" the word in the same way as the first soil. This is merely profession. Only one soil is said to be "good" and Christ makes it clear that only true believers are contained within that one "good" soil by his distinction between "some thirty....some sixty.....some a hundred fold." You don't understand the context of these parables and so you don't understand the parables. There is solid rejection of John the Baptist and Christ from Matthew 10-13 as even his own home town and family reject him at the end of chapter 13. Yet, this is the PROFESSED PEOPLE OF GOD that is rejecting him but all professed to have RECEIVED the Word of God above all other nations of the earth. Jesus is providing practical insights into why the PROFESSING people of God are rejecting him and how they can distinguish between true and false professors. The heart characteristics that distinguish them. The "seed" versus the "tare" characteristics. The "good" versus the "bad" fish characteristics, etc.

 

[The Biblicist]

It is not me that makes men an active participant, it is Jesus who says that in MANY places in scripture.

You are being dishonest and you know it! No one denies that believers believe and thus are participants as a response to the gospel. However, John 6:44-45 refers to the CAUSE behind their participation and refers only to the ACTIONS of the Father while they are PASSIVE in regard to only what the Father can do. You are dishonestly attempting to include and make active participants in the subject matter of what only the Father can do. You are attempting to create ACTIVE verbs and CONDITIONAL phrases by your interpretation of John 6:44-45 where NONE EXIST in the text because it does not deal with their active particpation but only with the work God alone can and must do to bring about their participation. So you are dishonestly attempting to include what the text excludes because it is dealing with the Father's work as causal proven by the passive verbs rather than any participant action.

Jhn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

It takes two to tango. Even the best teacher cannot teach someone who is unwilling to learn. The teaching is provided by the Father, but the hearing and learning must be performed by the recipient of that teaching.

Again complete dishonesty with the Word of God. Hearing and learning are PASSIVE verbs not ACTIVE. Your intepretation must repudiate the very grammar.

Indeed, your interpetation is an outright contradiction to the basis premise of the text. "NO MAN CAN" is the basis premise that demands the Father draw - hence there is NONE WILLING as the basic premise of the text. It is the Father's work that MAKES THEM WILLING as without it NONE ARE WILLING as "NO MAN CAN."

There are no conditions or exceptions provided in the text but your positon above demands there is and your intepretation inserts into the text what is not there.

Your interpetation is simply dishonest is perverts the grammar and inserts what is not there in order to defend a false doctrine.

Mar 4:24 And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given.
25 For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.

After the parable of the soils, the disciples asked Jesus what it meant. They did not understand this parable any better than the rest of the people. Jesus then carefully explained the parable to them.

The difference between the disciples and those that did not understand was not that the disciples were supernaturally regenerated to understand, the difference was that they sought out Jesus afterward and desired that he explain the parable to them. They did not disregard Jesus's teaching because it was difficult to understand, they knew it was important, and so they went to him and asked him to explain it. This is the difference.

You are confusing the CONDITION of the soils which is the point of the parables with COMPREHENSION which differs between true children of God as "some thirty....some sixty....some."

Again, the ONLY soil that is called "good" is the last and the ONLY soil inclusive of Christians with various stages of sanctification is the one called "good" - Period! The others do not represent "good" hearts but evil hearts. The others do not represent different types of Christians in different stages of sanctification but only the last one does. You simply do not know what you are talking about and must pervert the text to defend your false ideas.

 

[The Biblicist]

This argument is plain silly and illogical. Any teacher will tell you students learn differently. The teacher gives the same instructions and lessons to all students. Some pay diligent attention, study and do their homework and learn much, while others goof off in class, refuse to study and do their homework, and fail miserably.

Jesus spoke the same words to all. Sometimes they were very difficult to understand. Those who did not care went their way. But those who believed Jesus was the Son of God pursued after him and asked him to explain his words to them. And Jesus told these persons what his words mean.

False teachers always must leave the Biblical text and respond by human logic, non-Biblical illustrations, perversions of the text in order to respsond to exgetical based interpretations that expose their false doctrine. That is precisely your common method. I present the facts of the text you can only respond with human logic and unbiblical illustrations.

Not one single solitary uninspired illustration or human logic overturns anything I said because what I said is based upon a solid exegetical basis. No need to repeat it because you can't grasp it.

Your view is easily refuted by scripture.

Pro 1:32 For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them.
33 But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.

Those who refuse to learn will be destroyed, but those who listen to God and learn will dwell safely.

Another tactic common to all false teachers is that they will first JUMP out of the context because they cannot deal with the exegetical based facts and then PIT scripture against scripture when the scripture chosen as nothing to do with the other in regard to proper context. So is the case here.

You are confusing texts that describe responses with texts that describe causes. Proverbs 1:32 says nothing about the CAUSE behind their rejection but Romans 8:7-8 and Psalms 14:2-3 do! Romans 10:17 and 2 Cor. 4:6 deal with the CAUSES whereas you refer the readers to the CONSEQUENCES where those causes are not applied.

Every word that comes out of your mouth is a perversion of Scripture. Just stopped in to see what was going on and now I see. I have better things to do today then fool with this kind of foolishness. chow!

 

[Winman]

This response is inexcusable. You know very well that "could not" is the necessary consequence of an unwilling disposition as in Romans 8:7 it is the unwilling disposition which "IS" enmity and "IS NOT" subject to the law of God that NECESSARILY RESULTS in "neither indeed CAN be." So they as long as they "would not" they "could not" until that ruling contrary disposition is changed.

That is your presupposition. Could Jesus have easily said "could not"? Of course, but that is not what Jesus said. You cannot force your personal interpretation into the text.

You don't get it, you are ASSUMING Total Inability is true. If Total Inability is not true, then these persons could have repented and come to Jesus. That is the question up for debate. You cannot seem to grasp that.

Foreknowlege is based upon God's eternal purpose not vice versa as Romans 8:28-29 proves. Foreknowledge (v. 29) follows God's "purpose" (v. 28).

Actually, it says whom God did foreknow, these persons he did predestinate. So what God "predestined" follows his foreknowledge. Then it says those he did predestinate, he did call. These are the ones called according to his purpose.

Second, John 6:65 has NOTHING to do with God's foreknowlege as it is merely the repetition of John 6:44 which has NOTHING to do with God's foreknowledge. Neither does John 6:64 have anything to do with God's foreknowledge but with God's omnscience. He knew omnisciently from the beginning who were the true and false professors among his disciples including Judas who was a "devil" from the very beginning.

Where did I say that John 6:45 deals with foreknowledge? Show where I said such a thing.

John 6:65 replaces the word "draw" with the word "given" and "given" refers to faith in verse 64 which those false professors were without. That is what drawing by the Father does it gives "faith" and that is why ALL who are drawn come to Christ just as ALL who are taught come to Christ. Don't bother denying this as my former post destroyed your false interpretation of John 6:45 and your eisgetical insertion of external teachers, conditional active participation by those being taught.

What is given is the word of God in verse 63;

Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.


It was the word of God that is given, but the word only effectually works in those that believe.

1 The 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

The word of God only effectually works in those that believe. Therefore, no man can come to Jesus unless the word of God were given to him, but the man must believe.

Prior to Peter going to his house God said he had already "cleansed" him and Peter acknowledge as soon as he came through the door that God had already "accepted" them. The word "saved" does not always refer to initial salvation as in regeneration and gospel conversion as they already were believers in the Old Testament anticipatory gospel (Acts 10:43). "Saved" here refers to the usefulness of their lives in the service of God or with water baptism, church membership and active obedience to God's way of service.

Pure baloney. The only reference to being cleansed is when the sheet came down from heaven, showing Peter that the gospel was now to be preached to the Gentiles. But Cornelius was not yet saved, the angel said so.

Acts 11:14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

You quote the very verses that prove He already had been accepted by God and cleansed by God before Peter ever came through the door:

Cornelius was not saved as I just showed (Acts 11:14), neither did he have the Holy Spirit. According to Romans 8:9 a man without the Spirit is "in the flesh" and "none of his".

Acts 10:4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Cornelius was accepted with God, this is why God sent an angel to tell him how to be saved. You don't get it, this refutes your doctrine that an unregenerated man has the ability to believe in God and do righteous works. If Cornelius was already saved, he would have no need to be saved. If he already had the indwelling Spirit, he would have no need to receive the Spirit.

Neither does it say they "believed"! They "received" the word in the same way as the first soil. This is merely profession. Only one soil is said to be "good" and Christ makes it clear that only true believers are contained within that one "good" soil by his distinction between "some thirty....some sixty.....some a hundred fold." You don't understand the context of these parables and so you don't understand the parables. There is solid rejection of John the Baptist and Christ from Matthew 10-13 as even his own home town and family reject him at the end of chapter 13. Yet, this is the PROFESSED PEOPLE OF GOD that is rejecting him but all professed to have RECEIVED the Word of God above all other nations of the earth. Jesus is providing practical insights into why the PROFESSING people of God are rejecting him and how they can distinguish between true and false professors. The heart characteristics that distinguish them. The "seed" versus the "tare" characteristics. The "good" versus the "bad" fish characteristics, etc.

It certainly does say Cornelius believed.

Acts 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

Paul said that God gave Cornelius the like gift as he did unto them WHO BELIEVED.

I have shown you a dozen times that the scriptures ALWAYS show a person must first believe to receive the Spirit.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Peter told these Jews they must repent and believe (because only believers are allowed to be baptized, and only a believer has remission of sins) and AFTERWARD they would receive the Spirit.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Paul's question demands the answer that these Galatians received the Spirit by first believing the gospel.

I could show you many more examples that all show a person must first believe to receive the Spirit, but you refuse to listen.

You cannot show anywhere in scripture that a person receives the Spirit before believing, yet I have already shown you two examples where a person receives the Spirit after believing.

You are not a Biblicist, you are a fanatic Calvinist.

 

[Winman]

Here is what John Gill said concerning Acts 11:17

Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift,.... Of the Spirit, of speaking with divers tongues:

as he did unto us; the apostles: who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ: which clause stands either connected with "us" the apostles, and so is descriptive of them who first believed in Christ, and became followers of him; or with "them" the Gentiles, as the Syriac version renders it, "if therefore God gave that gift equally to these Gentiles which believed on our Lord Jesus Christ, as unto us"; for it seems most likely, that faith in Christ came by hearing Peter's discourse, before the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit fell upon them:

As you see, Gill believes this verse "most likely" states that Cornelius believed before receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38)

Clarke;

God gave them the like gift, etc. - Viz. the Holy Spirit, and its various gifts and graces, in the same way and in the same measure in which he gave them to us Jews. What was I, that I could withstand God? It was not I who called them to salvation: it was God; and the thing is proved to be from God alone, for none other could dispense the Holy Spirit.

Clarke says Cornelius received the Holy Spirit "in the same way" as the Jews. And how did they receive the Spirit? By believing on the Lord Jesus.

It is not those who believe in God that received the Spirit, but those who believe "on Jesus". Very specific.

Jhn 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

The Holy Spirit is only given to those who believe "on me" or "on him" speaking of Jesus.

Many believed in God that did not yet believe on Jesus.

Jhn 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

Cornelius believed in God, but he did not yet believe on Jesus. He did not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit until he heard the gospel and believed on Jesus.

 

[The Biblicist]

That is your presupposition. Could Jesus have easily said "could not"? Of course, but that is not what Jesus said. You cannot force your personal interpretation into the text.

Do you know the difference between a doctrinal text and a narrative text? Apparently not. Romans 8:7 gives the doctrinal reason whereas Jesus is simply a narrative relating their responses without dealing with its causes.

This kind of confusion characterizes every single word that spews out of your mouth. Go back to school and learn some abc's of Biblical interpetation then come and we can have a logical conversation.

Actually, it says whom God did foreknow, these persons he did predestinate. So what God "predestined" follows his foreknowledge. Then it says those he did predestinate, he did call. These are the ones called according to his purpose.

You simply just cannot be honest with God's Word at any point! Romans 8:28 precedes Romans 8:29 as to cause and effects. Read romans 8:28 and you will see all "all things" are worked out "according to" God's Purpose and those "all things" are then listed in Romans 8:29-30. You reverse it! Worse yet, you cut Romans 8:28 completely out of your explanation and begin your twisted reasoning from verse 29.

Where did I say that John 6:45 deals with foreknowledge? Show where I said such a thing.

OK, so what? I believe in God's foreknowledge. God knows before we are born whether we will believe or not. I showed John 6:65 to support this. - Winman post #83

You said "John 6:65" which is just another repetition of John 6:44. However, God's foreknowledge has nothing to do with either except in your imagination. John 6:64 has to do with omniscience but not foreknowledge.

What is given is the word of God in verse 63;

Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Don't you ever get tire of perverting the word of God?????!!! Your intpertation is IMPOSSIBLE as John 6:65 is merely a repetition of John 6:44 which says NOTHING ABOUT THE WORD OF GOD! Anyone with objective eyes in their head can plainly see that verse 65 is explanatory of verse 64 and why they did not believe because the Father it was not "given" unto them so they could come to Father.

It was the word of God that is given, but the word only effectually works in those that believe.

1 The 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

The word of God only effectually works in those that believe. Therefore, no man can come to Jesus unless the word of God were given to him, but the man must believe.

Jumping out of context into another context seems to be your modus operandi as it is with every false teacher who cannot deal with the context and its exegetical characteristics. John 6:64-65 deals with unbelievers while 1 Thes. 1:13 deals with believers - apples versus oranges. John 6:65 is a doctrinal explanation of why they did not believe. However, it is worthless talking to you as you are willfuly blind and no amount of evidence will turn your rebellious heart to the truth.

Pure baloney. The only reference to being cleansed is when the sheet came down from heaven, showing Peter that the gospel was now to be preached to the Gentiles.

You can't be serious? How pathetic! The sheet was never unclean but it was the animals that were unclean. God never called on Peter to eat the "sheet" but to eat the animals. Peter specifically tells the meaning of the vision that the animals not the sheet represented gentiles. God had already "cleansed" and "accepted" them prior to Peter entering the door. You simply are ignorant about the various uses of the term "saved."

Acts 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

The gift was what they received on Pentecost but they were saved before Pentecost. He is talking about spiritual gifts. They were baptized in the Spirit and spoke in tongues BEFORE water baptism.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The gift was conditioned upon BAPTISM as well. The promise of the Baptism in the Spirit in every case is conditioned upon faith and BAPTISM in water (Mt. 3:11). However, this is another subject you do not understand.

 

[Winman]

Do you know the difference between a doctrinal text and a narrative text? Apparently not. Romans 8:7 gives the doctrinal reason whereas Jesus is simply a narrative relating their responses without dealing with its causes.

Baloney. Calvinism is ridiculous, because it implies that even the Lord Jesus did not know how to properly express himself. If Jesus wanted to show Total Inability, he could have easily said these persons "could not" come to him and end all confusion. Laughable.

This kind of confusion characterizes every single word that spews out of your mouth. Go back to school and learn some abc's of Biblical interpetation then come and we can have a logical conversation.

You simply just cannot be honest with God's Word at any point! Romans 8:28 precedes Romans 8:29 as to cause and effects. Read romans 8:28 and you will see all "all things" are worked out "according to" God's Purpose and those "all things" are then listed in Romans 8:29-30. You reverse it! Worse yet, you cut Romans 8:28 completely out of your explanation and begin your twisted reasoning from verse 29.

Amazing, a Calvinist accusing a non-Cal of reversing scripture? Now that is funny. :laugh:

OK, so what? I believe in God's foreknowledge. God knows before we are born whether we will believe or not. I showed John 6:65 to support this. - Winman post #83

You said "John 6:65" which is just another repetition of John 6:44. However, God's foreknowledge has nothing to do with either except in your imagination. John 6:64 has to do with omniscience but not foreknowledge.

What? John 6:64 absolutely deals with foreknowledge.

Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

"65" was a typo, I meant John 6:64. I have mentioned this verse several times now, so you should have known what I was referring to. Verse 64 absolutely speaks of foreknowledge, it says Jesus "knew from the beginning who believed not". Therefore he also knew from the beginning who believed.

Don't you ever get tire of perverting the word of God?????!!! Your intpertation is IMPOSSIBLE as John 6:65 is merely a repetition of John 6:44 which says NOTHING ABOUT THE WORD OF GOD! Anyone with objective eyes in their head can plainly see that verse 65 is explanatory of verse 64 and why they did not believe because the Father it was not "given" unto them so they could come to Father.

And both are speaking about the word of God. Jhn 6:45 explains how men are drawn in verse 44, by being taught by the Father. And how are men taught by the Father? By the word of God. If someone had not preached the word of God to you, you would not know who the true God is, and you would not know about Jesus Christ. You were not supernaturally "zapped" with this knowledge. This is why Paul asked how any man could believe in Jesus unless he heard of him in Romans 10:14.

John 6:65 is referring back to both verses 63 and 64. In verse 63 Jesus spoke of "the words that I speak". This is the word of God. In verse 64 he says, "but some of you believe not". Then he connects this in verse 65 with the word "Therefore" no man can come to me unless it were given to him of my Father. What was given to men of the Father? HIS WORD. But you must believe the word, the word of God only effectually works in those that believe.

It is like shouting fire in a theater, it is easy to see who believes, because it will work in them, they will run to the exits. Those who do not believe will remain in their seats.

Jumping out of context into another context seems to be your modus operandi as it is with every false teacher who cannot deal with the context and its exegetical characteristics. John 6:64-65 deals with unbelievers while 1 Thes. 1:13 deals with believers - apples versus oranges. John 6:65 is a doctrinal explanation of why they did not believe. However, it is worthless talking to you as you are willfuly blind and no amount of evidence will turn your rebellious heart to the truth.

Of course 1 The 2:13 deals with believers, but it tells an important truth, the word of God only works in those that believe it. You teach the opposite, you teach that the word of God works effectually to cause persons to believe. This is the exact opposite of what scripture says.

You can't be serious? How pathetic! The sheet was never unclean but it was the animals that were unclean. God never called on Peter to eat the "sheet" but to eat the animals. Peter specifically tells the meaning of the vision that the animals not the sheet represented gentiles. God had already "cleansed" and "accepted" them prior to Peter entering the door. You simply are ignorant about the various uses of the term "saved."

Brother. I didn't think I had to explain all the unclean creatures on the sheet, I assumed you were intelligent enough to figure that out by yourself. I'll never make that mistake again.

The gift was what they received on Pentecost but they were saved before Pentecost. He is talking about spiritual gifts. They were baptized in the Spirit and spoke in tongues BEFORE water baptism.

I actually agree, but after Pentacost men were required to believe on Jesus to be saved. Cornelius was not saved, the scriptures specifically tell us this. He also did not have the Spirit, and Paul says persons without the Spirit are in the flesh and "none of his" in Rom 8:9;

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

We know Cornelius was not saved (because the scriptures say he needed to get saved) and he did not have the Spirit. So he was in the flesh and none of Jesus's. Yet he was able to believe in God and do good works.

You just don't get it, your doctrine is easily refuted by scripture. Too bad.

The gift was conditioned upon BAPTISM as well. The promise of the Baptism in the Spirit in every case is conditioned upon faith and BAPTISM in water (Mt. 3:11). However, this is another subject you do not understand.

Wow, you are a glutton for punishment. Obviously baptism was not required, because Cornelius and his family received the Spirit before they were baptized.

You walked right into that one.

 

[Winman]

And by the way, we are specifically told that Cornelius was baptized AFTER he received the Holy Spirit.

Acts 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

So maybe you should quit telling folks that it was necessary to be baptized first to receive the Spirit?

 

[The Biblicist]

Baloney. Calvinism is ridiculous, because it implies that even the Lord Jesus did not know how to properly express himself. If Jesus wanted to show Total Inability, he could have easily said these persons "could not" come to him and end all confusion. Laughable.

Romans 8:7 shows they are inseperably related and so to state one is to include the other. In Romans 8:7 the WOULD NOT is stated first and causal to the could not. Hence, Jesus stated it correctly as he said "would not". This is all above your pay grade.

Amazing, a Calvinist accusing a non-Cal of reversing scripture? Now that is funny. :laugh:

Another tactic of false teachers. When they are pinned, respond by ridicule and make a joke out of it - ta da! However, your ridicule does not reverse cause and consequences or make Romans 8:28 disappear or make verse 29 precede verse 28 so the joke is on you.

What? John 6:64 absolutely deals with foreknowledge.

Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

"65" was a typo, I meant John 6:64. I have mentioned this verse several times now, so you should have known what I was referring to. Verse 64 absolutely speaks of foreknowledge, it says Jesus "knew from the beginning who believed not". Therefore he also knew from the beginning who believed.

You can't prove "the beginning" has reference to before the world began. The context would imply from the beginning of their profession as disciples. It only implies his omnicience not necessarily foreknowledge. However, again, foreknowledge the consequence of purpose as Romans 8:28 proves as verse 29 is a consequence not the cause, it is the working out of the purpose not the cause of the purpose.

And both are speaking about the word of God. Jhn 6:45 explains how men are drawn in verse 44, by being taught by the Father. And how are men taught by the Father? By the word of God. If someone had not preached the word of God to you, you would not know who the true God is, and you would not know about Jesus Christ. You were not supernaturally "zapped" with this knowledge. This is why Paul asked how any man could believe in Jesus unless he heard of him in Romans 10:14.

The fact of the matter I was supernaturally "zapped" with knowledge defined as "light" or revelation directly from God as was Peter (Mt. 16:17 and was Paul - Gal. 1:16-17) as are all TRUE children of God. Only false professors are not.

John 6:45 says NOTHING about the word of God being preached to anyone but is referring specially to only the work that God can do alone as the one coming to christ is presented in the PASSIVE voice.

You must pervert God's word to teach your false doctrine. You must insert what it is not there change what is there and that is what your interpretation is based upon and characterized by - the mishandling of God's Word.

John 6:65 is referring back to both verses 63 and 64. In verse 63 Jesus spoke of "the words that I speak". This is the word of God. In verse 64 he says, "but some of you believe not". Then he connects this in verse 65 with the word "Therefore" no man can come to me unless it were given to him of my Father. What was given to men of the Father? HIS WORD. But you must believe the word, the word of God only effectually works in those that believe.

That is rediculous. The Word of God had been given to them by your own confession but John 6:65 is about what had NOT BEEN GIVEN to them. They had not been given faith to believe in the Word they heard with their external ears. They had not been taught by the Father. They had not learned of the Father. They had not heard the Father and therefore they did not truely come to Christ in faith.

Of course 1 The 2:13 deals with believers, but it tells an important truth, the word of God only works in those that believe it.

Did anyone deny the word of God works effectually in believers? No! We are talking about unbelievers who become believers and the cause behind it not about believers who have that cause already existing in them.

You teach the opposite, you teach that the word of God works effectually to cause persons to believe. This is the exact opposite of what scripture says.

You are again confusing the preached word with the internal application of God's word within man as in 2 Cor. 4:6 which is solely the work of God. Your position depends on confusing the two OR going back and forth and pitting one against the other. You can't discern between cause and effect. If simply the preached word of God is the power to salvation then it should save everyone it is preached to as the very same problem (sin) is the obstacle in all who hear it. However, even your position must admit that the plain preaching of the gospel is NOT SUFFICIENT alone to save anyone. You must admit that the Holy Spirit must first do an INTERNAL WORK for anyone to be saved by the gospel. Hence, what I am teaching is not only what the Bible clearly teaches (2 Cor. 4:6) by divine fiat saving knowledge is imparted but effectually so as in Gen. 1:3.

Brother. I didn't think I had to explain all the unclean creatures on the sheet, I assumed you were intelligent enough to figure that out by yourself. I'll never make that mistake again.

You perverted the text and you know it now you are attempting to back out by ridicule. I said he had been "cleansed" prior to Peter coming and had been "received" prior to Peter coming and you responded that it was the "sheet" that was unclean in direct response to my assertion that the animals had typified Cornelius and his household as Peter clearly states to them. Thus Cornelious as represented by the animals in the vision had already been "cleansed" previous to Peter's arrival and previously "received" prior to Peter's arrival becuase they were already beleivers in the Old Testament gospel (Acts 10:43) but their lives had not been "saved" or incoporated into the new way of service - the house of God - the church.

I actually agree, but after Pentacost men were required to believe on Jesus to be saved. Cornelius was not saved, the scriptures specifically tell us this. He also did not have the Spirit, and Paul says persons without the Spirit are in the flesh and "none of his" in Rom 8:9;

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Thus according to your rediculous interpetation everyone prior to Pentecose was "none of his" but were the Devils. So much for hebrews 11 huh?

You don't understand the nature of the baptism of the Spirit as it is a CORPORATE act. The difference between the baptism in the Spirit and personally indwelling by the Spirit is the difference between 1 Cor. 3:16 and 1 Cor. 6:19 - go study it.

Wow, you are a glutton for punishment. Obviously baptism was not required, because Cornelius and his family received the Spirit before they were baptized.

You walked right into that one.

Again, you don't understand the doctrine of the baptism of the Spirit and thus can't understand my point is perfectly consistent with the fact they were not yet water baptized. The baptism in the Spirit has NOTHING to do with personal salvation at all. It is the public accrediting and indwelling of the PUBLIC HOUSE OF GOD. The Jews would not water baptize Gentiles apart from this PUBLIC ACT OF ACCREDITATION by God which confirms them as accepted by God for WATER BAPTIMS INTO THE NEW HOUSE OF GOD -the church.