• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

"given" is inclusive of "draw" in John 6

Status
Not open for further replies.

Inspector Javert

Active Member

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Folks....

It's not that we don't UNDERSTAND your Calvinists positions:

It's just that we think it's full of crap!!!

Hey, we understand the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation too:

We just think it's full of crap!!!

It is not that we do not understand how you feel. It is that you are totally incapable of defending your position intelligently and capably. That is the problem.

I placed before you an example you admit that totally destroys your whole position and yet you have no intelligent capable response. God's will is under the coersion of his nature and it is IMPOSSIBLE for HIs will to choose contrary to His nature and if God is OMNIPOTENT are you really suggesting a creature who is not omnipotent is yet capable of exercising his will contrary to his own nature when God cannot do it??? We have heard you nonsense, ridicule, bloviating but do you have any intelligent response?
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
DUH.... We already know this :sleeping_2:

Right, because if it were, it would actually be a "BEING" as you said :laugh::laugh:

That, sir is stupid.

The only thing that is "stupid" is your responses. They are empty of an intelligent and capable response. You are suggesting that man can do what God can't and yet God is omnipotent and man is not. Now that is oxymoronic but that is the logical end of your theological position.

The will of any rational being does not exist in a vacuum nor does it exist outside of a cause and consequence relationship with the rest of the essence of his being. To suggest so, is to suggest that the will exists as a distinct separate being completely free of any influence in the universe - thus more capable than God Himself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Inspector Javert

Active Member
I placed before you an example you admit that totally destroys your whole position and yet you have no intelligent capable response.
What, pray tell, is a "capable" response?
Is that the same as a "will" being a "being" as you said?
God's will is under the coersion of his nature
duh :sleeping_2:
are you really suggesting a creature who is not omnipotent is yet capable of exercising his will contrary to his own nature when God cannot do it???
There are a lot of things men can do that God cannot do, like, for instance:
Call a "will" a "being" and make other similarly stupid category mistakes.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
There are a lot of things men can do that God cannot do, like, for instance:
Call a "will" a "being" and make other similarly stupid category mistakes.

This begs the question because the very differences you are stating are due to differences in NATURE. My argument has been and still is, will does not exist in a vacuum nor does it exist outside a cause and consequence relationship with the rest of the essence that makes up the nature of that being. Your response is based upon differences of nature while you are denying that nature determines any coersive role or cause and effect relationship to the will.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This begs the question because the very differences you are stating are due to differences in NATURE. My argument has been and still is, will does not exist in a vacuum nor does it exist outside a cause and consequence relationship with the rest of the essence that makes up the nature of that being. Your response is based upon differences of nature while you are denying that nature determines any coersive role or cause and effect relationship to the will.

1. Does the will of any being exist in a vacuum without any cause and effect relationship with the rest of the essence of that beings nature?

2. There are creatures who can do what God cannot do BECAUSE of the difference of their nature and BECAUSE of the cause and effect relationship of their will with the rest of the essence of their nature.
 

Inspector Javert

Active Member
You are suggesting that man can do what God can't and yet God is omnipotent and man is not.
Can God lie?
NO
Can you?
YES

Therefore:
Man can do things that God cannot.
Now that is oxymoronic but that is the logical end of your theological position.
It is the logical end, yes...
But it's sound.
The will of any rational being does not exist in a vacuum nor does it exist outside of a cause and consequence relationship with the rest of the essence of his being.
Who said it did?
NOTHING exists in a vacuum.
To suggest so, is to suggest that the will exists as a distinct separate being completely free of any influence in the universe
Who said it is "completely free of any influence"?

NO one, that's who. And no one on this board ever does say that. It is readily admitted by all your opponents.
thus more capable than God Himself.
If you want to classify man's capacity to destroy himself, ruin his own soul and harm himself and others as a "capability"....
Then, feel free to.

But, they are indeed able to do so, and yet, God is not.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Can God lie?
NO
Can you?
YES

Did you read my response to this? Your very argument is based upon difference of nature and therefore it begs the question. On one hand because God's nature is righteous he cannot lie - it is impossible for him to lie, but that is due to NATURE. You ask if I can lie and yet you want to dismiss nature as causal in your argument with man. If your argument was consistent you would have to admit that the inability of lying is due to the NATURE of God as there is no other cause to explain why it is IMPOSSIBLE with the will of God and therefore the ability to lie is equally due to the contrary NATURE of man. You cannot possibly explain the impossiblity of lying in God other than his NATURE and therefore you cannot be consistent by attributing lying in man to some other factor than NATURE.


NOTHING exists in a vacuum.

Who said it is "completely free of any influence"?

NO one, that's who. And no one on this board ever does say that. It is readily admitted by all your opponents.

Just because you will not admit it does not change the fact that the only possible rational basis behind your position demands that is in fact your only alternative to the difference in NATURE being the cause in God and man equally.
 

Winman

Active Member
If man is controlled by his nature, then man would ALWAYS choose to do the worst possible thing he can do. The fact that he does not shows that man has the ability to choose good.

The scriptures themselves show this;

Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

And Jesus implied that he could lie.

Jhn 8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

Jesus never lied, he never committed any sin, but he implied he was ABLE to do so.

So Biblicist is all wet and does not understand scripture. Men are able to do good, and Jesus was able to do evil. Otherwise it would be nonsensical to tempt him, it would be utterly meaningless.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
If man is controlled by his nature, then man would ALWAYS choose to do the worst possible thing he can do.

That is not true simply because man is not omnipotent AND because God controls circumstances. Circumstances limit options. In addition to circumstances, their are other factors that limit man from doing the worst. There are fear factors that act as inhibator's such as social response, the law of reaping what you sow, etc. Moreover, doing the worst thing possible is not always the best option for pure selfishness. So your argument is wrong on many fronts.





The fact that he does not shows that man has the ability to choose good.

No, I have just shown your whole rationale does not consider all factors and so this is not a rational conclusion. It is not a Biblical conclusion as the Bible repeatedly over and over again make UNIVERSAL DENIALS of the very thing you are asserting.

The scriptures themselves show this;

Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Notice, the text does not say "before the child shall know how to CHOOSE EVIL and refuse the good." However, that is what would be required of this verse to support your interpetation.


And Jesus implied that he could lie.

Jhn 8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

There is not even a hint of implication that he could lie in this verse but an absolute explcit denial to the contrary. The only way he could be a liar like them is "if" this was possible but he clearly denies it with the words "BUT I know him, and KEEP his saying."



So Biblicist is all wet and does not understand scripture. Men are able to do good, and Jesus was able to do evil. Otherwise it would be nonsensical to tempt him, it would be utterly meaningless.

Why not keep this conversation out of the gutter and just exchange ideas? Every argument you give above has been shown to be based upon lack of facts, misinterpretation of scriptures and outright contradiction to repeated universal statements to the contrary. Such are the facts.
 

Winman

Active Member
That is not true simply because man is not omnipotent AND because God controls circumstances. Circumstances limit options. In addition to circumstances, their are other factors that limit man from doing the worst. There are fear factors that act as inhibator's such as social response, the law of reaping what you sow, etc. Moreover, doing the worst thing possible is not always the best option for pure selfishness. So your argument is wrong on many fronts.

Oh sure, God can prevent any man from sinning any time he chooses, that is not the point.

The point is, if the man is controlled by his nature, he would ALWAYS choose the most evil thing he could do. The fact that men do not choose to do the worst thing they can do proves they are not controlled by their nature, but they themselves determine what their nature is.

No, I have just shown your whole rationale does not consider all factors and so this is not a rational conclusion. It is not a Biblical conclusion as the Bible repeatedly over and over again make UNIVERSAL DENIALS of the very thing you are asserting.

Oh, I am sure in your mind you believe you have provided invincible evidence, but you are in a world of your own. You have done no such thing. Anybody can look around and see that men do not always choose the worst thing they can do. You are living in a fantasy world of your own creation.

Notice, the text does not say "before the child shall know how to CHOOSE EVIL and refuse the good." However, that is what would be required of this verse to support your interpetation.

The verse is simply showing that children are not born knowing good from evil, and this is why a little child cannot be guilty of sin. But the fact is, once a child is old enough to understand between good and evil, they are completely able to choose good and do so all the time. They do not all kill their little sister.

There is not even a hint of implication that he could lie in this verse but an absolute explcit denial to the contrary. The only way he could be a liar like them is "if" this was possible but he clearly denies it with the words "BUT I know him, and KEEP his saying."

Sure there is, Jesus said, and "IF" I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you. If Jesus could not lie, it would be a lie to suggest it is even possible. The word "IF" denotes option and possibility.

Why not keep this conversation out of the gutter and just exchange ideas? Every argument you give above has been shown to be based upon lack of facts, misinterpretation of scriptures and outright contradiction to repeated universal statements to the contrary. Such are the facts.

You are all wet, I call a spade a spade. Everybody in the world except Calvinists can see men can choose good. Actually, even Calvinists admit that men are not as bad as they could be, which is saying they can be "better" or "good". Like I said, you didn't kill your family when you were a kid, but you had the ability to do so. If you were controlled by a totally depraved nature, you would have killed them.

Actually, your parents would have killed you first. :laugh:
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oh sure, God can prevent any man from sinning any time he chooses, that is not the point.

You are repeating absolute falsehoods again! Man does not control his circumstances and would have to do so for him to always carry out the worst choices. There are consequences that the most evil of men fear (government, social, other men's evil responses, law, etc) which restrain them. Pure selfishness is not always served by doing the worst. You cannot simply ignore these facts and hope they go away but that is what you are trying to do and what you must do to make your irrational argument to be rationale.




Oh, I am sure in your mind you believe you have provided invincible evidence, but you are in a world of your own. You have done no such thing. Anybody can look around and see that men do not always choose the worst thing they can do. You are living in a fantasy world of your own creation.

Is that why you cannot respond to the problems I presented to your assertion? Is that why you ignore the problems placed in front of you?



The verse is simply showing that children are not born knowing good from evil, and this is why a little child cannot be guilty of sin. But the fact is, once a child is old enough to understand between good and evil, they are completely able to choose good and do so all the time. They do not all kill their little sister.

This scripture proves they can choose evil and refuse good even if they are not capable yet of discerning which is which. Tags don't change what something is by its very nature. The nature of every infant is as self-centered as it comes and the entire young life must be taught by parents and circumstances to CONTROL its appetites and actions.



Sure there is, Jesus said, and "IF" I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you. If Jesus could not lie, it would be a lie to suggest it is even possible. The word "IF" denotes option and possibility.

First, the word "if" does not always suggest something is possible but in many cases demands it is not possible. For example, "If I go away, I willl return" does not infer he might not go away. For example, "If it were not so, I would have told you" does not infer it might not be so, but in each of these cases the word "if" means "Since" and that is what it means in this text.

Furthermore, this is a third conditional class clause in the Greek text according to A.T. Robertson:

And if I should say (καν ειπω). Third-class condition (concession), "even if I say," with και εαν (καν) and second aorist active subjunctive. "Suppose I say."

It does not suggest the possibility but only provides a hypothetical argument which is contrary to fact.



You are all wet, I call a spade a spade. Everybody in the world except Calvinists can see men can choose good.

Your probelm is that "everbody in the world" is not the final authority for determining whether this is true or false. The Word of God repeatedly with universal language explicitly repudiates you and the world. Finally, good is not defined by God according to "everybody in the world" but according to His own definition of "good" which he judges by the roots of motive in the heart behind whatever you choose to think, say or do.

However, let the reader look at your authority for your doctrine ("the world") rather than the Word of God.


Like I said, you didn't kill your family when you were a kid, but you had the ability to do so. If you were controlled by a totally depraved nature, you would have killed them.

Actually, your parents would have killed you first. :laugh:

If I had a body that was mature to match my evil nature not only I would have killed my parents but so would every child ever born and mankind would have self-anihilated. That is why infants come in small packages and why older more mature self-controlled parents have children.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Winman

Active Member
You are repeating absolute falsehoods again! Man does not control his circumstances and would have to do so for him to always carry out the worst choices. There are consequences that the most evil of men fear (government, social, other men's evil responses, law, etc) which restrain them. Pure selfishness is not always served by doing the worst. You cannot simply ignore these facts and hope they go away but that is what you are trying to do and what you must do to make your irrational argument to be rationale.

What a bunch of baloney. If man is controlled by his nature, he is going to do the worst thing he can do every time, just like the lion is going to choose the meat over grass.

You are demonstrating how phony Calvinism is. You guys talk out of both sides of your mouth all the time. You will come here and insist men cannot choose to listen to the gospel or believe it, even when men are threatened with eternal death by God, but now you tell us these same evil men are going to obey the speed limit because they are afraid of getting a ticket. :laugh:

You guys are full of it, you constantly move the goalposts so that you always come out on top. The only ones fooled by this are you Calvinists yourselves.

If men are afraid of going to jail and so do not choose to kill other people, they can also be afraid of God and choose to trust Christ.

Is that why you cannot respond to the problems I presented to your assertion? Is that why you ignore the problems placed in front of you?

What a laugh, I am ignoring problems? Now that is funny.


This scripture proves they can choose evil and refuse good even if they are not capable yet of discerning which is which. Tags don't change what something is by its very nature.

Nonsense. You think you can simply interpret scripture any way you want don't you?

First, the word "if" does not always suggest something is possible but in many cases demands it is not possible. For example, "If I go away, I willl return" does not infer he might not go away. For example, "If it were not so, I would have told you" does not infer it might not be so, but in each of these cases the word "if" means "Since" and that is what it means in this text.

Here we go again, Calvinism redefining words. What a shocker! :laugh:

Furthermore, this is a third conditional class clause in the Greek text according to A.T. Robertson:

And if I should say (καν ειπω). Third-class condition (concession), "even if I say," with και εαν (καν) and second aorist active subjunctive. "Suppose I say."

It does not suggest the possibility but only provides a hypothetical argument which is contrary to fact.

Right. :rolleyes:

Your probelm is that "everbody in the world" is not the final authority for determining whether this is true or false. The Word of God repeatedly with universal language explicitly repudiates you and the world. Finally, good is not defined by God according to "everybody in the world" but according to His own definition of "good" which he judges by the roots of motive in the heart behind whatever you choose to think, say or do.

However, let the reader look at your authority for your doctrine ("the world") rather than the Word of God.

If I had a body that was mature to match my evil nature not only I would have killed my parents but so would every child ever born and mankind would have self-anihilated itself.

I'm sorry I used the word "everybody", I should have remembered that means "the elect only" to you. It is difficult to talk to you Calvinists because you have different definitions for words than MOST people. (I almost said "everybody else" there)

I am glad to see that you admit that if we truly were enslaved to our nature we would all be the worst we could be and would have annihilated ourselves many centuries ago.

The fact we have not PROVES man is not compelled to do evil and has the ability to choose good.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
What a bunch of baloney. If man is controlled by his nature, he is going to do the worst thing he can do every time, just like the lion is going to choose the meat over grass.

You are making yourself look very foolish. Any intelligent reader fully comprehends that omnipotence is essential for the worst choice and action to be accomplished. Mutual evil is a restraint as one mans worst choice and action may be met by another equally worst choice and action by other evil men - thus fear of retribution does in fact restrain evil. Limitations due to circumctance restrains the worst desires and actions. Pure selfishness prevents this as the worst possible choices and actions. Government, armies, police, war restrains the worst of choices and actions. If you are not capable of understanding these restraints are real and effective that make your argument completely foolish, then no one can help you as I have spelled it out three times now and not one time have you even attempted to address a single item but simply repeated your irrational statement and then provided nothing else but ridicule.

You are demonstrating how phony Calvinism is. You guys talk out of both sides of your mouth all the time. You will come here and insist men cannot choose to listen to the gospel or believe it, even when men are threatened with eternal death by God, but now you tell us these same evil men are going to obey the speed limit because they are afraid of getting a ticket. :laugh:

That is simply not true and you know it. We believe that large numbers of mankind every day EXTERNALLY hear, MENTALLY are convinced, and VOLITIONALLY choose to come to Christ but nevertheless are no more genuinely saved after they choose to come to Christ as they were before they come to Christ. This is the experience of all tares, false professors and those identified as "his disciples" in John 6:64 who were NEVER drawn by the Father as Jesus defines drawing in John 6:44-45.

You guys are full of it, you constantly move the goalposts so that you always come out on top. The only ones fooled by this are you Calvinists themselves.

Again, no substantive response only ridicule and personal attack.

If men are afraid of going to jail and so do not choose to kill other people, they can also be afraid of God and choose to trust Christ.

Coming to Christ out of fear of hell is not the basis for true salvation as coming to Christ due to hunger for bread and fish is not the basis for true salvation. There must be a condition of true "repentance" logically preceding faith or else it is a false profession. Repentance is turning because God is turning you from sin to righteousness from darkness to light and that is impossible apart from God giving a new heart and spirit.



Nonsense. You think you can simply interpret scripture any way you want don't you?

Again, I provide substantive reasons, grammar and your only response is ridicule. Don't you realize how this makes you look to any intelligent reader??? At least attempt to address the reasons I give and show why they are either wrong and/or unreasonable.



I am glad to see that you admit that if we truly were enslaved to our nature we would all be the worst we could be and would have annihilated ourselves many centuries ago.

Unlike adults infants have not learned any restraints except their physical limitations. Learning to restrain/control yourself comes by consequences alone. So really this is an admission by you of universal depravity beginning from the womb.
 

Winman

Active Member
You are making yourself look very foolish. Any intelligent reader fully comprehends that omnipotence is essential for the worst choice and action to be accomplished. Mutual evil is a restraint as one mans worst choice and action may be met by another equally worst choice and action by other evil men - thus fear of retribution does in fact restrain evil. Limitations due to circumctance restrains the worst desires and actions. Pure selfishness prevents this as the worst possible choices and actions. Government, armies, police, war restrains the worst of choices and actions. If you are not capable of understanding these restraints are real and effective that make your argument completely foolish, then no one can help you as I have spelled it out three times now and not one time have you even attempted to address a single item but simply repeated your irrational statement and then provided nothing else but ridicule.

Any intelligent reader can see how ridiculous and contradictory your arguments are.

Men can choose good and do so all the time. If men can choose to do good because they are threatened with jail or prison, they could certainly choose good if they were threatened with hell.

That is simply not true and you know it. We believe that large numbers of mankind every day EXTERNALLY hear, MENTALLY are convinced, and VOLITIONALLY choose to come to Christ but nevertheless are no more genuinely saved after they choose to come to Christ as they were before they come to Christ. This is the experience of all tares, false professors and those identified as "his disciples" in John 6:64 who were NEVER drawn by the Father as Jesus defines drawing in John 6:44-45.

Again, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Calvinists often teach that men cannot be willing to hear or listen to the gospel or choose Christ unless they are regenerated. Now you are directly contradicting your own self.

Again, no substantive response only ridicule and personal attack.

And well deserved. You guys think people are stupid, you insult people's intelligence. The only ones fooled are Calvinists themselves.

Coming to Christ out of fear of hell is not the basis for true salvation as coming to Christ due to hunger for bread and fish is not the basis for true salvation. There must be a condition of true "repentance" logically preceding faith or else it is a false profession. Repentance is turning because God is turning you from sin to righteousness from darkness to light and that is impossible apart from God giving a new heart and spirit.

Of course it is, or else God would not warn people of hell.

Jud 23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

Mat 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Again, I provide substantive reasons, grammar and your only response is ridicule. Don't you realize how this makes you look to any intelligent reader??? At least attempt to address the reasons I give and show why they are either wrong and/or unreasonable.

You provide a bunch of nonsensical double-talk.

Unlike adults infants have not learned any restraints except their physical limitations. Learning to restrain/control yourself comes by consequences alone. So really this is an admission by you of universal depravity beginning from the womb.

You have already admitted that if a baby was physically mature enough he would kill his family. Therefore you agree that if man was truly enslaved to his sin nature he would be the very worst he could be at all times.

The fact that men are not the worst they can be shows they are not enslaved to their nature and that your view is a complete fallacy.

No amount of double-talk is going to make your false view correct. You are only fooling yourself.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Any intelligent reader can see how ridiculous and contradictory your arguments are.

If that is so, then why can't you point out the contradictions rather than just making unproven assertions and repeating the same line?????




Again, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

If that is so, then why can't you point out how I am speaking out of both sides of my mouth rather than making unsupported accusations?

Calvinists often teach that men cannot be willing to hear or listen to the gospel or choose Christ unless they are regenerated. Now you are directly contradicting your own self.

You are only demonstrating your own misunderstanding of our position. We have never denied the GENERAL call brings in bad fish who are more than willing to embrace the gospel for a variety of reasons, all of which are wrong.


Of course it is, or else God would not warn people of hell.

Jud 23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

Mat 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Coming wrath can be used to get our attention to what the real reason is for that wrath which is our sin. No amount of fear of hell can acheive salvation or obtain salvation or be the proper cause for coming to Christ as the greater issue is the cause for the coming wrath which is our sins. Jesus said "repent or perish" (Lk. 13:3) as there is no salvation for the unrepentant regardless how much they fear hell or come to Christ to escape hell.








You have already admitted that if a baby was physically mature enough he would kill his family. Therefore you agree that if man was truly enslaved to his sin nature he would be the very worst he could be at all times.

You are selective in your reading. However, I will repeat it again. Infants are without SELF-CONTROL which is only learned by consequences. Infants anger and selfishness is controlled by things greater than themselves - restraints of a weak and small body; larger parents able to overrule their anger and selfishness. So, babies are not able to carry out their worst desires because they are not omnipotent and because there are restraints placed around them. If no such restraints were in place, then yes they would kill parents and sibblings alike.

The same is true for adults. They are not omnipotent. Trial and error has taught them self-control due to consequences, restraints, fears. So once again you seem not able to comprehend these simple factors that completely destroy your theory.



No amount of double-talk is going to make your false view correct. You are only fooling yourself.

The majority of your posts are composed of ridicule without any substantive responses and readers can see this. Why not drop the ridicule and empty assertions and provide some substantive responses?
 

Winman

Active Member
I am not going to keep arguing with you. When it comes to being obstinate and stubborn, you beat me hands down (and everyone else for that matter).

Your debate technique is simply to talk your opponent to death.

Folks can easily see who is the double-talker.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Men can choose good and do so all the time.
You need to super-qualify that one!
If men can choose to do good because they are threatened with jail or prison, they could certainly choose good if they were threatened with hell.
At your age you have had to run into some people who are so defiant that the notion of Hell doesn't scare them at all. These individuals would then go on to even more perversity of speech regarding Hell and their eternal torment.

if man was truly enslaved to his sin nature he would be the very worst he could be at all times.
The radical corruption of humanity doesn't mean that they do the worst sins all the time.It means that they are are affected by sin in their whole being --it affects their whole being.
 

psalms109:31

Active Member
All scripture is to believers to do the great commission not to tell them some can't come. The scripture is not to teach what a unbeliever can't do, but what a believer is to do.

If they do not hear, they can not be drawn. They can not be given if they have nothing to go to.

I praise God for the one who brings the good news, if people do not believe it is on them not me, not God.

I still believe and always will believe that God does not want any to die but rather them to repent and live. If they do not repent they will not live and they will die in their sins.

I am believer and see that scripture, His word is for me to believe in.

Peter got it right, because he was a believer, where shall I go you have the words of eternal life. The crowd did what they were always doing who left they did not listen and learn they were following the crowd not drawn by the Father for they did not listen and learn as Peter did.

Peter at the time did not understand everything, but he listened and learned and let God the Father through the words of Jesus change who he was into the person God wanted him to be.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The fact that men do not choose to do the worst thing they can do proves they are not controlled by their nature, but they themselves determine what their nature is.
How long have you believed in the sovereignty of man Winman?If people have the kind of power you so vociferously argue --why do they need God?

Actually, even Calvinists admit that men are not as bad as they could be, which is saying they can be "better" or "good".
Not as bad does not = good. Richard Nixon was not as bad as Obama does not mean that Nixon was good.

And the words 'good' and 'better' are not synonyms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top