IF You Hold Gospel is To ALL men: Interprete John 8:42-47!

[JesusFan]

Did you note my word "perhaps" there to draw out further thought against this proving "free-will" as an objective? I believe here "ean" is better translated "unless" and often times where we see "if" used in Scriptures it can be better rendered.

You miss my point. By the way the word "if" doesn't prove free-will, and perhaps "unless" they believe, they are not His Sheep. In other words not believing proves one not to be of His fold.

- Peace

Does it really look like those peoples jesus rebuked really had "free will" to choose Him or Not?

Think it does support what we saw concerning fact that NONE of us Ultimate sense decide our Eternal state and condition, its in Will of God!

Bob Dylan had it wrong...

You indeed got to "serve some body, devil or the Lord" but dont think have a 'full choice" in whose the Master!

 

[Gershom]

Does it really look like those peoples jesus rebuked really had "free will" to choose Him or Not?

Think it does support what we saw concerning fact that NONE of us Ultimate sense decide our Eternal state and condition, its in Will of God!

Bob Dylan had it wrong...

You indeed got to "serve some body, devil or the Lord" but dont think have a 'full choice" in whose the Master!

Why would anyone rebuke someone who had no choice?

 

[mandym]

God saves men (John 1:12, John 3:16). How does he do it? Scripture is not clear. But we do know that when the gospel is preached some people believe and some do not. the point is that the gospel should be preached and we need to let God do the figuring of how and why people come to him. It is not our business and as far as I can see it only causes division since God has not made the mechanics of it all clear. Anything else is just adding to the gospel unnecessarily.

Just preach the gospel, which is Jesus died to make men free from their sin, repent and be saved. All this other hobbly goo does nothing to add to the gospel or the salvation of men's souls. The rest is God's business not ours.

 

[JesusFan]

Why would anyone rebuke someone who had no choice?

They actually made their choice to believe lies of satan and reject jesus the Messiah!

 

[JesusFan]

God saves men (John 1:12, John 3:16). How does he do it? Scripture is not clear. But we do know that when the gospel is preached some people believe and some do not. the point is that the gospel should be preached and we need to let God do the figuring of how and why people come to him. It is not our business and as far as I can see it only causes division since God has not made the mechanics of it all clear. Anything else is just adding to the gospel unnecessarily.

Just preach the gospel, which is Jesus died to make men free from their sin, repent and be saved. All this other hobbly goo does nothing to add to the gospel or the salvation of men's souls. The rest is God's business not ours.

Agree in principle, but doing that would take the "pleasure" away from postin ghere on BB for so many of us!

 

[mandym]

Agree in principle, but doing that would take the "pleasure" away from postin ghere on BB for so many of us!

No doubt. They might just go study their Bibles if they didn't have this.


Just kdding :smilewinkgrin:

 

[preacher4truth]

Does it really look like those peoples jesus rebuked really had "free will" to choose Him or Not?

Think it does support what we saw concerning fact that NONE of us Ultimate sense decide our Eternal state and condition, its in Will of God!

Bob Dylan had it wrong...

You indeed got to "serve some body, devil or the Lord" but dont think have a 'full choice" in whose the Master!

Heres the problem going on: We have one, namely Winman, attempting to prove free-will off of the word "if", or in other words, his doctrine off of it then come along others to rebut him, and he gets twisted and angry and slings mud saying Calvinists are trying to establish a doctrine off of it, as he himself is doing. This word can be better rendered "unless" here.

Free-will is not proven by his verse no matter how hard he tries. As he has stated, he is angry at Calvinists and every verse he sees proves free-will and man is capable, and not nearly as lost as God says. Lost man is an enemy of God, not seeking God, he is hostile toward God. The Scriptures are plain on this.

I wonder who enabled Lazarus? Lazarus himself or Jesus' Word? To a free-willer, he being dead made a choice. That is foolishness, and I've heard this preached. To us? God's Word enabled him, and this is the Scriptural position, as Gods Word is the source of all life, not mans "free-will." This picture of Lazarus is a perfect example and given for this reason and more. One position exalts God, the other, man.

- Peace

 

[JesusFan]

Heres the problem going on: We have one, namely Winman, attempting to prove free-will off of the word "if", or in other words, his doctrine off of it then come along others to rebut him, and he gets twisted and angry and slings mud saying Calvinists are trying to establish a doctrine off of it, as he himself is doing. This word can be better rendered "unless" here.

Free-will is not proven by his verse no matter how hard he tries. As he has stated, he is angry at Calvinists and every verse he sees proves free-will and man is capable, and not nearly as lost as God says. Lost man is an enemy of God, not seeking God, he is hostile toward God. The Scriptures are plain on this.

I wonder who enabled Lazarus? Lazarus himself or Jesus' Word? To a free-willer, he being dead made a choice. That is foolishness, and I've heard this preached. To us? God's Word enabled him, and this is the Scriptural position, as Gods Word is the source of all life, not mans "free-will." This picture of Lazarus is a perfect example and given for this reason and more. One position exalts God, the other, man.

- Peace

IF one errs in just HOW bad the fall of Man was/is, how we are indeed 'dead" to God in a spiritual sense, that we ARE in Adam and have sinful natures, sin of Adam was imputed to all of us by God

IF one fails to see the Cross provided salavation, but thar man CANNOT come to it and get saved by/in themselves

We get a 'funny" Sotierology theology!

 

[Allan]

Wrong again as you miss my entire point and still continue on the wrong track and subject that I've addressed. 1) "If" here doesn't prove man has free-will as Winman proclaims. 2) Sometimes "if" doesn't mean if, as to call into question, as used in Colossians 3:1 where it can be rendered "forasmuch" or "since". 3) The word can be better translated "unless" in John 8:24. 4) Scholarship does support this especially in Colossians 3:1 as some render if "since." 5) Some versions rightly use "since" in Col. 3:1. 6) "Unless" is used in some versions in John 8:24.

I never said that John 8:24 should be the word since. You're on this track to prove scholarship in John 8:24 doesn't support something I've never said, that you misunderstand. Also, the context doesn't support it to be "since" and this is what you think I am saying. I simply was making a point that it isn't always what it seems. It definitely doesn't prove man has free-will.

You missed my point. I have not address anything dealing with whether or not man has free-will here regarding these verses. I was merely stating, from a translation standpoint, the word in question can not be translated as 'since'. That was all I was saying

 

[preacher4truth]

You missed my point. I have not address anything dealing with whether or not man has free-will here regarding these verses. I was merely stating, from a translation standpoint, the word in question can not be translated as 'since'. That was all I was saying

No, I got your point completely, which is why I said this, addressing it completely:

I never said that John 8:24 should be the word since. You're on this track to prove scholarship in John 8:24 doesn't support something I've never said, that you misunderstand. Also, the context doesn't support it to be "since" and this is what you think I am saying. I simply was making a point that it isn't always what it seems. It definitely doesn't prove man has free-will.

You however missed mine which is why you rambled about it on and on not paying attention to what I actually said and/or didn't say.

Several times I have told you I didn't state such, yet you continued to call me out as "scholars and others" don't support what I allegedly said, but didn't.

 

[Winman]

The problem with Calvinism is that it mischaracterizes spiritual death. The rich man who died and went to hell in Luke 16 could see, hear, feel torment, feel concern for his brothers, and carry on a conversation with Abraham who was spiritually alive. He was not like a lifeless corpse that cannot respond.

When Jesus called the young maiden who had died in Lk 8:54-55 it says HER SPIRIT CAME AGAIN. Why? Because she was a believer.

Jesus said that all things are possible to him that believes. When Jesus called Peter out to him when he walked on the water, why did Peter begin to sink? Did Jesus's power fail?

Answer that, did Peter sink because Jesus's power failed? No, the problem was that Peter's faith failed.

Jesus has the power, but he only imparts it to those that believe. And this is what he said of Lazarus.

Jn 11:23 Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.
24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

Jesus here in vs. 25 confirms the dead have the ability to believe. Read it for yourself.

Because Lazarus believed when Jesus called him, Jesus gave him the power for his spirit to return to his body, just as he did for the young maiden in Luke 8.

Man has no power whatsoever, Peter could not possibly walk on water. But because he believed Jesus when he called, Jesus empowered Peter to do that which is impossible, and Peter was now ABLE to walk on water. But the moment Peter began to be afraid and doubt, he began to sink. Jesus's power did not fail, Peter's faith did.

If a spiritually dead person believes Jesus, Jesus will give that person the power to BECOME a son of God. (Jn 1:12)

 

[JesusFan]

The problem with Calvinism is that it mischaracterizes spiritual death. The rich man who died and went to hell in Luke 16 could see, hear, feel torment, feel concern for his brothers, and carry on a conversation with Abraham who was spiritually alive. He was not like a lifeless corpse that cannot respond.

When Jesus called the young maiden who had died in Lk 8:54-55 it says HER SPIRIT CAME AGAIN. Why? Because she was a believer.

Jesus said that all things are possible to him that believes. When Jesus called Peter out to him when he walked on the water, why did Peter begin to sink? Did Jesus's power fail?

Answer that, did Peter sink because Jesus's power failed? No, the problem was that Peter's faith failed.

Jesus has the power, but he only imparts it to those that believe. And this is what he said of Lazarus.

Jn 11:23 Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.
24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

Jesus here in vs. 25 confirms the dead have the ability to believe. Read it for yourself.

Because Lazarus believed when Jesus called him, Jesus gave him the power for his spirit to return to his body, just as he did for the young maiden in Luke 8.

Man has no power whatsoever, Peter could not possibly walk on water. But because he believed Jesus when he called, Jesus empowered Peter to do that which is impossible, and Peter was now ABLE to walk on water. But the moment Peter began to be afraid and doubt, he began to sink. Jesus's power did not fail, Peter's faith did.

If a spiritually dead person believes Jesus, Jesus will give that person the power to BECOME a son of God. (Jn 1:12)

Just curious, how do you see Depraived being from the perspective of a calvinist than?

How do you see us saying what 'spiritual dead" is?