• 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!

Giving by the Father - Jn. 6:37-65

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
First, I seriously doubt you think about anybody but yourself.

Second, I have patiently answered almost all of your excessively verbose posts. You are never at a lack for words.

Third, I have provided honest interpretive diffences to you, but you do not accept them. Fine.

John 6:45 is the key to understanding verses 37, 44, and 65.

Verse 37 tells us all that the Father gives Jesus shall come to him.

Verse 44 tells us none can come unless drawn, and those that come will be raised up the last day.

Verse 65 tells us that no man can come to Jesus unless "it" were given him.

Just what is the "it" Jesus speaks of? All of these verses are explained by verse 45;

John 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.

How is a man drawn to Jesus? By being taught about Jesus. When a man is taught he is a sinner, but that Jesus died for his sins to save him, this is what draws a man to Christ.

What is given to men that makes them come? Knowledge. When God teaches a man, this is what causes him to believe and causes him to come to Jesus.

But the hearing and learning is man's part. God the Father teaches through his word, but man is responsible to hear and learn from God, not unlike students in any school.

You want us to believe God force-feeds certain men with knowledge, but you cannot submit a single verse to support this. You simply assume Irresistible Grace is true, even when multiple scriptures have been submitted to you that easily refute it.

Pro 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

God tries to teach all men, but some men despise wisdom and instruction.

Pro 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

Pro 1:24 Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;
25 But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:

It may not fit your Calvinist concept of God, but the scriptures show God calling out to men, stretching his hands out to them, but they would not listen to his counsel or his reproofs.

Irresistible Grace is FALSE DOCTRINE.

Why continue this? Anyone can read our exchanges when we both were deailing with textual issues instead of personal issues and see that I provided detailed contextual based evidences that you responded to by assertions based on nothing but your own opinions. The record is there for our readers to examine themselvves for themselves. Your opinions are irrational, contrary to basic principles of hermenuetics, contradictory to the Greek grammar and thus worthless.

I am not willing to debate someone who is irrational and has so much bias they will say anything, anything to defend their bias. If you had any objectivity and honesty in dealing with passages I would more than accomodate you. I can say that skandelon for the most part tries to be objective and our discussions are substantive more than any other opponent to the truth.
 

Winman

Active Member
Why continue this? Anyone can read our exchanges when we both were deailing with textual issues instead of personal issues and see that I provided detailed contextual based evidences that you responded to by assertions based on nothing but your own opinions. The record is there for our readers to examine themselvves for themselves. Your opinions are irrational, contrary to basic principles of hermenuetics, contradictory to the Greek grammar and thus worthless.

I am not willing to debate someone who is irrational and has so much bias they will say anything, anything to defend their bias. If you had any objectivity and honesty in dealing with passages I would more than accomodate you. I can say that skandelon for the most part tries to be objective and our discussions are substantive more than any other opponent to the truth.

My opinions? I have provided scripture in nearly every post I have responded to you.

You can read, does God call out to men and stretch his hand out to them in an attempt to teach them but they refuse to listen and learn?

Answer that question. Let's see who is honest and who is not.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
My opinions? I have provided scripture in nearly every post I have responded to you.

You can read, does God call out to men and stretch his hand out to them in an attempt to teach them but they refuse to listen and learn?

Answer that question. Let's see who is honest and who is not.

You did not provide specific contextual based answers to the specific problems I presented you from the context.

However, on a lighter side. Did you happen to watch Sean Hanity's show last night or Friday night with the special tribute to Billy Graham?

I believe Billy Graham is a sincere born again man who preaches the essentials of justification by faith without works. However, he preaches a universal atonement and universal ability to believe. Is that your estimate as well? Would that reflect your own position as well?
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
My opinions? I have provided scripture in nearly every post I have responded to you.

You can read, does God call out to men and stretch his hand out to them in an attempt to teach them but they refuse to listen and learn?

Answer that question. Let's see who is honest and who is not.

The gospel is sent out to all without distinction and that is precisely WHO I preach it to. HOwever, the gospel is FOR only the willing, not the unwilling, for those who perceive themselves as sinners not for those who perceive themselves as righteous, for those thirsty and hungry for righteousness, not for those satisfied with self-righteousnes, for those burdened with sin not those who love sin. Such are the elect, the given, the drawn by the Father.
 

Inspector Javert

Active Member
The same is true about God's will. There is no EXTERNAL force that dictates His will. His will is not free from His own internal inclination/emotions but is simply the vehicle of their expression and thus His righteous heart is the INTERNAL force behind all his decisions. That is why God WILL NOT sin because His intellect and emotions are governed by a righteous nature as the governing force behind His will.

That satisfies the determinist definition for genuine freedom, but....it's not going to work for anyone who believes in L.F.W. Or, "contra-causal". That would be the crux of the debate.
To a non-determinist, a "free" will requires the capacity and ability to decide between more than 1 available option. It HAS no cause. It satisfies a determinist to define a will as free as long as their is no external compulsion.....If internal compulsion?...so be it.

For someone who believes in Libertarian volition, compulsion is compulsion regardless of whether it is internal or external, unfortunately. There MUST be the capacity to "do otherwise". Which is why some like the term "contra-causal" (there is no "cause"). A believer in L.F.W. considers your definition to be more like rote animal instinct.....not "volition". Unfortunately, conversation has to begin with settling which definition of "volition" is adequate. :( *sigh*
 

Winman

Active Member
The gospel is sent out to all without distinction and that is precisely WHO I preach it to. HOwever, the gospel is FOR only the willing, not the unwilling, for those who perceive themselves as sinners not for those who perceive themselves as righteous, for those thirsty and hungry for righteousness, not for those satisfied with self-righteousnes, for those burdened with sin not those who love sin. Such are the elect, the given, the drawn by the Father.

The gospel is for EVERYONE.

Heb 4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

This warning is non-sensical in the Calvinist view. The elect will irresistibly believe, so no warning is necessary, the non-elect cannot possibly believe so any warning is useless.

It is scripture like this that should easily show you Calvinism is error. Much of the scriptures do not make any sense if Calvinism is true.

The same exact gospel is preached to all men. The difference is that the gospel only profits those that believe.

Calvinism teaches the opposite of scripture, Calvinism teaches that God's word effectually works to cause a person to believe, while the scriptures teach that God's word only effectually works in those that believe. Those are direct opposites.

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.

It is not that the same powerful gospel is not preached to all men, it is. The difference is that some do not believe. God's word only effectually works in those that believe.

You teach the exact opposite of what scripture truly says.
 

Inspector Javert

Active Member
The gospel is for EVERYONE.

Heb 4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

This warning is non-sensical in the Calvinist view. The elect will irresistibly believe, so no warning is necessary, the non-elect cannot possibly believe so any warning is useless.

It is scripture like this that should easily show you Calvinism is error. Much of the scriptures do not make any sense if Calvinism is true.

The same exact gospel is preached to all men. The difference is that the gospel only profits those that believe.

Calvinism teaches the opposite of scripture, Calvinism teaches that God's word effectually works to cause a person to believe, while the scriptures teach that God's word only effectually works in those that believe. Those are direct opposites.

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.

It is not that the same powerful gospel is not preached to all men, it is. The difference is that some do not believe. God's word only effectually works in those that believe.

You teach the exact opposite of what scripture truly says.

2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2Pe 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
According to Calvinism...2 Peter 2:1-3 is false, since anyone who Christ "bought" will invariably and inevitably be saved. And, apparently....Peter was mistaken when he said Jesus has "bought" people who will ultimately be damned.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Winman

Active Member
2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2Pe 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
According to Calvinism...2 Peter 2:1-3 is false, since anyone who Christ "bought" will invariably and inevitably be saved. And, apparently....Peter was mistaken when he said Jesus has "bought" people who will ultimately be damned.

Yes, but never fear, James White himself argues this away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hdFUKA68Po

Once again, a Calvinist must try to convince people that scripture does not say what it naturally appears to say.

You would think that Calvinists themselves would become suspicious of their doctrine when scripture must CONSTANTLY be explained away, and words must be redefined from their normal and natural sense to make Calvinism work.

Calvinists pride themselves on how intelligent they are, but I believe you have to be incredibly naive to believe Calvinism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Inspector Javert

Active Member
WOW!!!! Just....WOW!!! :BangHead:

Actually he only re-defined two words, however....he used another tactic I have noticed instead:

Ignore 2 Peter, and look at Hebrews instead....

Translation:
step 1.) Forget that text, and look at "Justification" as taught by Calvinists in a completely different book presumptively by a completely different writer of Scripture altogether....

step 2.) Assume the correctness of our teaching of a completely different passage

step 3.) super-impose our version of that passage ONTO the passage you cite!

See how it all works!!
Keep your eye out for that:
spend 50% of your effort "exegeting" the passage he wants you to exegete and ignore the man behind that curtain

spend 40% of your time re-defining the key words...

spend 10% of your time insulting the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you.

It's like a politician who never answers the question you ask, but rather the question he wants you to ask:


Naïve young future Calvinist: "Hey Dr. White, doesn't 2 Peter 2 refute Calvinism?"
Dr. White: "Not at all....if you look at Hebrews 7-9......blah blah blah...."
Naïve young future Calvinist: "Ahhh, I see, thank you sir!"
Dr. White: "Remember, all non-Calvinists are Charles Finney, and they are also stupid............and they insist on "being in control" instead of loving God's Sovereignty."
Naïve young future Calvinist: "Will do!"
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
That satisfies the determinist definition for genuine freedom, but....it's not going to work for anyone who believes in L.F.W. Or, "contra-causal". That would be the crux of the debate.
To a non-determinist, a "free" will requires the capacity and ability to decide between more than 1 available option. It HAS no cause. It satisfies a determinist to define a will as free as long as their is no external compulsion.....If internal compulsion?...so be it.

For someone who believes in Libertarian volition, compulsion is compulsion regardless of whether it is internal or external, unfortunately. There MUST be the capacity to "do otherwise". Which is why some like the term "contra-causal" (there is no "cause"). A believer in L.F.W. considers your definition to be more like rote animal instinct.....not "volition". Unfortunately, conversation has to begin with settling which definition of "volition" is adequate. :( *sigh*

First, there is no denial of alternative options. Second, your position requires the will to be an isolated faculty that is completely independent from any external or internal controls which is not only impossible but does not exist in God or any of his creatures. The will is the SLAVE or the VEHICLE OF EXPRESSION for either intellect or emotions and that is precisely why every word translated will in the New Testament is connected with intellect (boulomai) or emotions (thelomai). Your concept has no Greek word to express it - none - zilch- nada, simply because it can't be found in the Scriptures.

What you have created is a PHILOSOPHICAL oxymoronic impossibility and a nonexistent figment of your imagination. It simply does not exist in God's creation or in God Himself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Inspector Javert

Active Member
First, there is no denial of alternative options.
I didn't say that you deny "alternative options"....I know that you will admit they EXIST. I made sure I insisted that they "have the CAPACITY TO CHOOSE" from available options. Your position denies that.

Trust me...this ain't my first rodeo.
Second, your position requires the will to be an isolated faculty that is completely independent from any external or internal.........
NO
YES....and there's the rub
which is not only impossible but does not exist in God or any of his creatures.
There's a bold and utterly un-proven Calvinist assumption!!! WOW!
The will is the SLAVE or the VEHICLE OF EXPRESSION for either intellect or emotions
You're just quoting Luther and Augustine.....That is WAY more than you can prove, and WAY more than you have learned from SCRIPTURE!!!

"BIBLICIST" my FOOT!! :laugh:
This is sheer philosophical conjecture on your part....complete philosophical conjecture.
and that is precisely why every word translated will in the New Testament is connected with intellect (boulomai) or emotions (thelomai).
There are more words in the Scriptures than Greek ones, like the other, say...2/3rds of the Bible, but yeah, ok. sure.....
But who denies that it's "connected"? What exactly does THAT MEAN!....and HOW are they "connected"? What do all these things prove?....Heck...it's "connected" to the BRAIN!, and by extension chemical synapses within it too! Inasmuch as one can't utilize the capacity to make a decision devoid of one, but so what?....It's "connected" (yes, that totally proves something meaningful) :rolleyes:
You've got nothing but pre-supposition for questions like that.
Your concept has no Greek word to express it - none - zilch- nada, simply because it can't be found in the Scriptures.
Yes it does...........as in........ask any "Greek" person who wrote at that time what they meant by it.......but, again.....There is more than Greek used in the Scriptures, just to let you know.
What you have created is a PHILOSOPHICAL oxymoronic impossibility and a
Philosophical: Sure, somewhat....so do you.
Oxymoronic: I dare you to meaningfully explain that assertion
Impossibility: You couldn't possibly prove it's "impossible".

You are actually just throwing out polysyllabic words just to sound smart right now aren't you?....Yeah, you are, you haven't thought this through at all..........You are literally just trying to use big words.
It simply does not exist in God's creation or in God Himself.
God himself........Possibly, although I tend to doubt that:
His creation?....yeah it does, yeah it does. And you couldn't possibly demonstrate otherwise.
 

Protestant

Well-Known Member
Don't tell me what foreknowledge means.

Translation: I no longer wish to hear and learn. It matters not what Scripture declares. I have made an immutable decision according to my unchangeable free will. Nothing and no one can make me believe otherwise. Therefore, this debate was, is and will always be circular.

Foreknowledge simply means to know something before it comes to pass.

Translation: How the first cause and all subsequent second causes concur to actually make something infallibly come to pass is of little importance. What is important is the end result. Whatever the result, whether belief or unbelief, Heaven or Hell, God is merely a bystander, a note-taker, not actively involved nor the primary cause in determining the outcome.

He gives every man a chance to be saved.

Translation: Salvation is determined by the pagan god ‘chance’, otherwise known as ‘lady luck’ and ‘fate’. Salvation is not grounded in the sovereign saving grace of God purposefully given in Christ to the Elect according to His good pleasure.

Jesus died for all men, he accomplished exactly what he set out to do. He provided salvation for every man who will believe on him. It is God himself that determined that men must believe on Jesus to be saved.

Translation: Jesus did not die with the purpose of infallibly atoning for the sins of specific persons given Him by the Father according to the Father’s infallible eternal will. Instead of being sent here on a mission whereby He would actually purchase salvation and all gifts necessary to guarantee salvation of those men given Him by the Father before the foundation of the world, Christ came hopeful, trying His utmost to reach men through His moral teaching, as well as His unselfish example of martyrdom.

I didn't change my analogy, I actually provided a video of a fish being pulled and drawn into a boat, but fighting and resisting and getting away. And fact is, men do get away from God.

Translation: Although I have been teaching the doctrine of ‘eternal security’ on this board, I will now, by the power of my free will, contradict that teaching by stating unequivocally that men can leave Christ, though they may have at one time been in the safe harbor of His ‘boat’....proving Jesus to be an incompetent fisher of men.

Being drawn is not what causes a man to come to Jesus, though no man can come unless he is drawn. But not all who are drawn come. Those who hear and learn from the Father are the ones who come to Jesus, this is what causes them to come.

Translation: How many times must I tell you ignorant Calvinists that the ultimate cause of men’s salvation is the good use of their free will??

To free will be the power and the glory! Amen.
 

Protestant

Well-Known Member
Dear Disciple of Catholic Apologist Peter Kreeft:

It was the Papal Godfather who made an offer to the 'heretics' that they worship his wafer-god for the safe-keeping of their lives.

But the innumerable 'heretics' refused; who overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony, and they loved not their lives unto the death.
 

Inspector Javert

Active Member
Dear Disciple of Catholic Apologist Peter Kreeft:

It was the Papal Godfather who made an offer to the 'heretics' that they worship his wafer-god for the safe-keeping of their lives.

But the innumerable 'heretics' refused; who overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony, and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Dude...the "Protestant and I.J. call each other Catholics" thingy...was like soooo totally....like.... "Yesssterdaaaayy".....like....Omigawwwwd....

That's not even in vogue now. Keep up with the new styles man!

This game was played like 36+ hours ago.
 

Winman

Active Member
Translation: I no longer wish to hear and learn. It matters not what Scripture declares. I have made an immutable decision according to my unchangeable free will. Nothing and no one can make me believe otherwise. Therefore, this debate was, is and will always be circular.

No, I am quite able to both hear and learn, but I have already studied the word foreknowledge. I also know how Calvinism must redefine this particular word because it refutes your doctrine.

Now, Acts 2:23 is a great example of what I am saying. In no way is foreknowledge being used to describe a personal relationship. It is saying that God foreknew EVENTS that would take place. Even Albert Barnes a Calvinist himself admits this;

Albert Barnes said:
Foreknowledge - This word denotes “the seeing beforehand of an event yet to take place.” It implies:

1.Omniscience; and,

2.That the event is fixed and certain.
To foresee a contingent event, that is, to foresee that an event will take place when it may or may not take place, is an absurdity. Foreknowledge, therefore, implies that for some reason the event will certainly take place. What that reason As, however, God is represented in the Scriptures as purposing or determining future events; as they could not be foreseen by him unless he had so determined, so the word sometimes is used in the sense of determining beforehand, or as synonymous with decreeing, Romans 8:29; Romans 11:2. In this place the word is used to denote that the delivering up of Jesus was something more than a bare or naked decree. It implies that God did it according to his foresight of what would be the best time, place, and manner of its being done. It was not the result merely of will; it was will directed by a wise foreknowledge of what would be best. And this is the case with all the decrees of God. It follows from this that the conduct of the Jews was foreknown. God was not disappointed in anything respecting their treatment of his Son, nor will he be disappointed in any of the actions of people. Notwithstanding the wickedness of the world, his counsel shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure, Isaiah 46:10.

As you see, foreknowledge (at least in Acts 2:23) has nothing to do with foreknowing someone in a personal intimate way as Calvinism constantly tries to redefine this word. Barnes agrees with my definition.

Translation: How the first cause and all subsequent second causes concur to actually make something infallibly come to pass is of little importance. What is important is the end result. Whatever the result, whether belief or unbelief, Heaven or Hell, God is merely a bystander, a note-taker, not actively involved nor the primary cause in determining the outcome.

No, God is not a bystander at all. It is like a chess game, God is playing his side. God foreknows what moves his opponent will make and so is in complete control, just as if you would be if you knew what your opponent was going to do. Nevertheless, your opponent is making his own moves within the options available to him.

Translation: Salvation is determined by the pagan god ‘chance’, otherwise known as ‘lady luck’ and ‘fate’. Salvation is not grounded in the sovereign saving grace of God purposefully given in Christ to the Elect according to His good pleasure.

Perhaps chance was a poor choice of words, I should have said "opportunity".

You do not seem to understand that it was God who devised how man is saved. It was God who determined that those men who make a free choice to believe will be saved, and those who do not believe will be damned.

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

These are the words of Jesus, those who believe will be saved, those that do not believe shall be saved. You seem to have a huge problem with the system of salvation God has devised. Take it up with him.


Translation: Jesus did not die with the purpose of infallibly atoning for the sins of specific persons given Him by the Father according to the Father’s infallible eternal will. Instead of being sent here on a mission whereby He would actually purchase salvation and all gifts necessary to guarantee salvation of those men given Him by the Father before the foundation of the world, Christ came hopeful, trying His utmost to reach men through His moral teaching, as well as His unselfish example of martyrdom.

Jesus died for all men, but the gospel only profits those that believe.

I have written in the past, I could buy a Super Bowl ticket for every member here at BB and post a thread that if any person here will send me their address, I will mail them a free ticket.

Those that believe me and write me get a free ticket. Those who do not believe me and do not write me will not get a free ticket.

Does that negate that I actually bought a ticket for each person here? NO.

Translation: Although I have been teaching the doctrine of ‘eternal security’ on this board, I will now, by the power of my free will, contradict that teaching by stating unequivocally that men can leave Christ, though they may have at one time been in the safe harbor of His ‘boat’....proving Jesus to be an incompetent fisher of men.

No, the moment a person accepts Christ they are born of "incorruptible seed" by the Holy Spirit. They cannot fall away in unbelief because the Holy Spirit remains in them and they cannot sin (1 John 3:9).

Translation: How many times must I tell you ignorant Calvinists that the ultimate cause of men’s salvation is the good use of their free will??

To free will be the power and the glory! Amen.

No, no man can come to Jesus unless he is drawn (Jhn 6:44). It is the love of Jesus Christ who died on the cross to save us from our sins that draws a man to Jesus. This is why Jesus said if he be lifted up he will draw all men to him (Jhn 12:32).

Jhn 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

That said, scripture is clear that not everyone who is called or drawn shall come.

Mat 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.

Look, it's OK to disagree with me, but don't misrepresent me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Inspector Javert

Active Member
Translation: Although I have been teaching the doctrine of ‘eternal security’ on this board, I will now, by the power of my free will, contradict that teaching by stating unequivocally that men can leave Christ, though they may have at one time been in the safe harbor of His ‘boat’
You are making the same error that those who don't believe in Eternal Security do.

Who said that just because God grants us freedom of will in regards to salvation that he MUST ALSO....grant it to us to leave the fold?

Seriously....you've never even thought of that possibility?

Just to let you know, just because one believes that God can (and does) grant Libertarian Free Will in at least SOME circumstances (like salvation)....that CLEARLY doesn't prove he does so in ALL circumstances.

You'll actually find plenty of people who simply affirm that he grants the option in only one and not the other....(I'm not one).
Alternatively, it's also perfectly possible that only those who NEVER WOULD "freely" choose to turn away from him will ever BECOME SAVED!

That's another possible answer it appears you've never thought about:

Please disprove the possibility of Both options before you insist that anyone who believes that God chose to grant man the freedom to choose Christ MUST ALSO by necessity be granted the option to subsequently choose against him.
It doesn't follow, I promise you.

....proving Jesus to be an incompetent fisher of men.
Please show us where, exactly, in Scripture Christ ever intended in any way to BE a "fisher of men"....

That wasn't his goal or purpose. (See e.g. the Bible.)

B.T.W: I cannot possibly be making any of these arguments by "my own free-will"....I must be merely doing precisely and only as God has Sovereignly decreed beforetime. The content of all of my posts was entirely God's purview, and none of my making. It was all of God that I think you haven't a clue what you are talking about....all of God.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Benjamin

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Benjamin, I could not help but notice you by-line at the bottom of your post. The logic is correct but the premise is false.

In salvation of the elect there is no external force used by God on the human will. Instead, God provides a new INTERNAL FORCE (new heart) that operates the will. The will is not an entity free from the moral nature and force of any being including God. Indeed, the will is merely the expression of intellect and emotions and NOTHING MORE. Both Greek terms translated "will" in the New Testament (1) boulomai; (2) thelomai prove this point. Boulomai is the will directed by the intellect whereas thelomi is the will directed by the emotions.

The governing inclination in fallen man is the "law of sin" that operates as the moral force behind the will in fallen man. You can easily see this from Romans 7:15-20. In regeneration God merely replaces this governing inclination with a new moral governing inclination (Ezek. 36:26-27). Thus the will FREELY expresses this new inward governing force/inclination (Rom. 7:21) but the Holy Spirit provides the inward power for this new willingness to be expressed outwardly in the life (Rom. 8:10-13).

The same is true about God's will. There is no EXTERNAL force that dictates His will. His will is not free from His own internal inclination/emotions but is simply the vehicle of their expression and thus His righteous heart is the INTERNAL force behind all his decisions. That is why God WILL NOT sin because His intellect and emotions are governed by a righteous nature as the governing force behind His will.

• Free will is defined as “volition” and this sustains the meaning that man has the ability to consciously choose; one cannot do both, have this ability and not have this ability in any logical sense. If man's response is determined by causal means to have an irresistible effect on the man then man's volition logically becomes void. ~Benjamin

You’re funny, you claim fault to my premise and replace my argument with your argument on a new premise that “Instead, God provides a new INTERNAL FORCE (new heart) that operates the will.”

You attempt to fly right the meaning of free will to be “volition” by redefining free will into that God implants an internal force while you deny free will is anything more than the expression and intellect of the force that God has put within the individual.

As IF God replacing one’s heart before they can chose so that they only chose through that replaced heart as determined to choose somehow magically gives man the volition to choose and defeats my logic! Sorry, but my valid argument is not faulted by your replacing it with a premise that first God replaces their heart then forces their choice…too funny! They “freely choose through a governing force” :laugh:

Oh, maybe if we begin on a rabbit chase on the authority that the Greek supports your definition of the human will concerning your argument switch and that will change my logic, eh? :laugh:

Hey! After that you can begin on a fallacious smokescreen of a scriptural proof-texting adventure to supposedly demonstrate that God replaces the heart to forcefully determine the outcome of the individual’ choice as if that defeats my logic. :laugh:

I know I shouldn’t give your smokescreen fallacy any attention as it will only give you more cause to effectively continue in it while avoiding the direct claims of my argument, but even though we’ve been through this circular road before I can’t resist to demonstrate once more the clear truth concerning the true promise of the Gospel to every creature, the heart and human responsibility:

(Rom 10:9) If you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Note: “You” is used 4 times in this verse. You Determinists will be surprised by how much "you" there is in a book that supposedly says that we do nothing.


You have to have a serious set of blinders on to miss that genuine faith must come from one’s own heart; this requires the ability to respond from their own heart, volition, and volition and determinism are logically mutually exclusive any way you might wish to philosophically splice your system together my friend. Proof-text till the cows come home but your flawed philosophical doctrinal designs will never defeat clear logical reasoning to draw out the truth in the scriptures, for God reveals His way in Truth!

You can't replace the premises to prove an argument doesn't logically hold. :laugh:
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You’re funny, you claim fault to my premise and replace my argument with your argument on a new premise that “Instead, God provides a new INTERNAL FORCE (new heart) that operates the will.”

The greek terms I provided you are indisputable facts. Find yourself a good Lexicon and check it out for yourself. Don't claim ignorance as an excuse.

Second, the will does not exist as an isolated faculty but as the Greek terms translated "will" demonstrate it merely expresses the desires of the heart. No one chooses anything other than what they either intellectual desire or emotionally desire even if by external force as in that situation they simply select what they intellectual or emotionally consider the less of two evils. This is not philsophical but simple common sense which seems to be missing in your type of philosophical speculation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Protestant

Well-Known Member
Re: Dr. Albert Barnes

Now, Acts 2:23 is a great example of what I am saying. In no way is foreknowledge being used to describe a personal relationship. It is saying that God foreknew EVENTS that would take place. Even Albert Barnes a Calvinist himself admits this;

As you see, foreknowledge (at least in Acts 2:23) has nothing to do with foreknowing someone in a personal intimate way as Calvinism constantly tries to redefine this word. Barnes agrees with my definition.

I am elated you were wise enough to seek the counsel of Albert Barnes.

Let us read word for word – not conveniently edited as you have presented his writing to us – what Albert Barnes has to say concerning the foreknowledge and salvation of specific persons chosen by God.

In the online publication of Romans 8:28-29 you will hear Dr. Barnes:

A) Differentiate between external and internal call (which you repudiate).

B) Declare the eternal purpose of God to save those He chose without any consideration of their willful consent (which you repudiate).

C) Define ‘Foreknow’ as referring to people (not just events) whom He purposed to save. They are the object of His foreknowledge, upon whom His eyes are fixed. The event of their salvation is certain and fixed.

D) Declare men are predestined unto salvation according to the purpose of His will, not man’s will (which you repudiate).

Verse 28

And we know - This verse introduces another source of consolation and support, drawn from the fact that all flyings are under the direction of an infinitely wise Being, who has purposed the salvation of the Christian, and who has so appointed all things that they shall contribute to it.

All things - All our afflictions and trials; all the persecutions and calamities to which we are exposed. Though they are numerous and long-continued yet they are among the means that are appointed for our welfare.

Work together for good - They shall cooperate; they shall mutually contribute to our good. They take off our affections from this world; they teach us the truth about our frail, transitory, and lying condition; they lead us to look to God for support, and to heaven for a final home; and they produce a subdued spirit. a humble temper, a patient, tender, and kind disposition. This has been the experience of all saints; and at the end of life they have been able to say it was good for them to be afflicted; Psalm 119:67Psalm 119:71; Jeremiah 31:18-19; Hebrews 12:11.

For good - For our real welfare; for the promotion of true piety, peace, and happiness in our hearts.

To them that love God - This is a characteristic of true piety. To them, afflictions are a blessing. To others, they often prove otherwise. On others they are sent as chastisements; and they produce complaining, instead of peace; rebellion, instead of submission; and anger, impatience, and hatred, instead of calmness, patience, and love. The Christian is made a better man by receiving afflictions as they should be received, and by desiring that they should accomplish the purpose for which they are sent; the sinner is made more hardened by resisting them, and refusing to submit to their obvious intention and design.

To them who are the called - Christians are often represented as called of God. The word κλητόςklētosis sometimes used to denote an external invitation, offer, or calling; Matthew 20:16; Matthew 22:14. But excepting in these places, it is used in the New Testament to denote those who had accepted the call, and were true Christians; Romans 1:6-7; 1 Corinthians 1:2, 1 Corinthians 1:24; Revelation 17:14. It is evidently used in this sense here - to denote those who were true Christians. The connection as well as the usual meaning of the word, requires us thus to understand it. Christians are said to be called because God has invited them to be saved, and has sent into their heart such an influence as to make the call effectual to their salvation. In this way their salvation is to be traced entirely to God.

According to his purpose - The word here rendered “purpose” πρόθεσις prothesismeans properly a proposition, or a laying down anything in view of others; and is thus applied to the bread that was laid on the table of show-bread; Matthew 12:4; Mark 2:26; Luke 6:4. Hence, it means, when applied to the mind, a plan or purpose of mind. It implies that God had a plan, purpose, or intention, in regard to all who became Christians. They are not saved by chance or hap-hazard. God does not convert people without design; and his designs are not new, but are eternal. What he does. he always meant to do. What it is right for him to do, it was right always to intend to do. What God always meant to do, is his purpose or plan. That he has such a purpose in regard to the salvation of his people, is often affirmed; Romans 9:11;Ephesians 1:11; Ephesians 3:11; 2 Timothy 1:9; Jeremiah 51:29.

This purpose of saving his people is,

(1)One over which a creature can have no control; it is according to the counsel of his own will; Ephesians 1:11.

(2)it is without any merit on the part of the sinner - a purpose to save him by grace; 2 Timothy 1:9. [i.e., not based on foreseen faith]

(3)it is eternal; Ephesians 3:11.

(4)it is such as should excite lively gratitude in all who have been inclined by the grace of God to accept the offers of eternal life. They owe it to the mere mercy of God, and they should acknowledge him as the fountain and source of all their hopes of heaven.


Verse 29

For whom he did foreknow - The word used here προέγνω proegnōhas been the subject of almost endless disputes in regard to its meaning in this place. The literal meaning of the word cannot be a matter of dispute. It denotes properly to “know beforehand;” to be acquainted with future events. But whether it means here simply to know that certain persons would become Christians; or to ordain, and constitute them to be Christians, and to be saved, has been a subject of almost endless discussion.

Without entering at large into an investigation of the word, perhaps the following remarks may throw light on it.

(1) it does not here have reference to all the human family; for all are not, and have not, been conformed to the image of his Son. It has reference therefore only to those who would become Christians, and be saved.

(2) it implies “certain knowledge.” It was certainly foreseen, in some way, that they would believe, and be saved. There is nothing, therefore, in regard to them that is contingent, or subject to doubt in the divine Mind, since it was certainly foreknown.

(3) the event which was thus foreknown must have been, for some cause, certain and fixed; since an uncertain event could not be possibly foreknown. To talk of a foreknowing a contingent event, that is, of foreknowing an event as certain which may or may not exist, is an absurdity.

(4) in what way such an event became certain is not determined by the use of this word. But it must have been somehow in connection with a divine appointment or arrangement, since in no other way can it be conceived to be certain. While the word used here, therefore, does not of necessity mean to decree, yet its use supposes that there was a purpose or plan; and the phrase is an explanation of what the apostle had just said, that it was “according to the purpose of God” that they were called. This passage does not affirm why, or how, or, “on what grounds” God foreknew that some of the human family would be saved. It simply affirms the fact; and the mode in which those who will believe were designated, must be determined from other sources. This passage simply teaches that he knew them; that his eye was fixed on them; that he regarded them as to be conformed to his Son; and that, thus knowing them, he designated them to eternal life. The Syriac renders it in accordance with this interpretation: “And from the beginning he knew them, and sealed them with the image of his Son,” etc. As, however, none would believe but by the influences of his Spirit, it follows that they were not foreknown on account of any faith which they would themselves exercise, or any goodworks which they would themselves perform, but according to the purpose or plan of God himself.

He also did predestinate - See the meaning of the original of this word explained in the notes atRomans 1:4; see also the Acts 4:28 note; and 1 Corinthians 2:7 note. In these places the word evidently means to determine, purpose, or decree beforehand; and it must have this meaning here. No other idea could be consistent with the proper meaning of the word, or be intelligible. It is clear also that it does not refer to external privileges, but to real conversion and piety; since that to which they were predestinated was not the external privilege of the gospel, but conformity to his Son, and salvation; see Romans 8:30. No passage could possibly teach in stronger language that it was God‘s purpose to save those who will be saved. Ephesians 1:5, “having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ unto himself.” Ephesians 1:11, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.”
 

Protestant

Well-Known Member
Dude...the "Protestant and I.J. call each other Catholics" thingy...was like soooo totally....like.... "Yesssterdaaaayy".....like....Omigawwwwd....

That's not even in vogue now. Keep up with the new styles man!

This game was played like 36+ hours ago.

Dear Disciple of Catholic Apologist Peter Kreeft:

On the one hand you portray yourself a Logician of the highest order, an expert Researcher and Church Historian, as well as a Free Will Apologist who would make Erasmus envious.

On the other hand, in the above post you reveal yourself as a laughing, foolish pubescent schoolgirl who is more interested in ‘Valley talk’ than commiserating the murders of millions of true believers by the eternal enemy of Christ and His Seed; i.e., the Seed of the Serpent, the Antichrist and his false church.

I dare say not even Winman would be so cavalier.

“And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow servants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top