Some arguments against Arminianism

[Rippon]

A more modern version courtesy of John Piper: (I am again struck by the trend that some of the most famous John's are Calvinists: John Macarthur, John Piper, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin, St. John :smilewinkgrin

Permit me to add to the list of Calvinists of the past in no order:

John Gill
John Brine
John Bunyan
John Lightfoot
John Ryland Sr.
John Ryland Jr.
John Flavel
John Cotton
John Foxe
John Preston
John Hus(s)
John Wycliffe
John Knox
John Newton

And,last,but certainly not least,my namesake :John Rippon.

 

[Rippon]

The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

1. Christ died for some of the sins of all people.
2. Christ died for all the sins of some people.
3. Christ died for all the sins of all people.

1) Makes no sense and is not biblical.
2) Shows the mercy of God and is perfectly biblical.
3) Shows absolutely no justice and is most certainly not biblical.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Permit me to add to the list of Calvinists of the past in no order:

John Gill
John Brine
John Bunyan
John Lightfoot
John Ryland Sr.
John Ryland Jr.
John Flavel
John Cotton
John Foxe
John Preston
John Hus(s)
John Wycliffe
John Knox
John Newton

And,last,but certainly not least,my namesake :John Rippon.

I can continue this list till the chickens roost however it doesnt carry weight with these guys.....we have been there & done this multiple times unfortunately.

 

[convicted1]

No, you were always floating around, I could go back and find old posts and prove it if I had to.

You ALWAYS believed faith was a gift the way Calvinists do. You never believed that men have the innate ability to believe. I always noticed that, and that was your Achilles heel.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2055386&postcount=93

There is an Total Inability taught in scripture, there really is. But it is not that men are unable to believe, it is that men are IGNORANT. No man is born knowing the gospel, and therefore no man is born able to believe it. You can't believe what you do not know. I have shown this a hundred times, but this fact is clearly revealed in Romans 10;

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

Paul is directly addressing man's ability to believe on Jesus for salvation in this verse.

Does Paul ask how any man can believe unless he is regenerated? NOPE, Paul does not say a word like that here or anywhere else in all the Bible.

Does Paul ask how any man can believe on Jesus unless he has heard of Jesus? YES. And then Paul asks how they can HEAR without a preacher.

Did Paul ask how they can hear unless they be regenerated? NO!

No, Paul simply implies that all men need to believe on Jesus is to hear of him. Men are ignorant, they are not born knowing the gospel. But as soon as a gospel preacher comes to town and tells them how Jesus died for their sins, and they can be forgiven if they will trust him, now they are enabled to either choose to trust Jesus or not.

And that is how you got saved, and I got saved, and everybody who is saved got saved. Somebody had to tell them the gospel, and they had to think on it, and finally get down on their knees and ask Jesus to save them.

There is not a word to support you must be regenerated to believe the gospel. You can't show it Willis, because no such scripture exists.

Why do you believe something that is not in the Bible Willis?

It is true that I always believed faith is a gift of God, and that I also have always clung to perseverence of the saints. But I still held firmly to free will, Brother Wes.

We have showed you a myriad of times that regeneration MUST precede conversion, you just don't accept the answers given. A skewed view of the fall gives a skewed view of your, or mine, our theological belief system.

 

[Winman]

It is true that I always believed faith is a gift of God, and that I also have always clung to perseverence of the saints. But I still held firmly to free will, Brother Wes.

We have showed you a myriad of times that regeneration MUST precede conversion, you just don't accept the answers given. A skewed view of the fall gives a skewed view of your, or mine, our theological belief system.

Willis, you have NEVER shown that regeneration precedes faith. Oh, in your mind you may believe that is so, but in reality it is not. Regeneration does not mean to be taught or enlightened, it literally means to be made alive (generated) again (re). That is what the word means, you cannot simply choose to redefine it to fit your new found beliefs.

Now, if you want to continue to redefine this word, there is nothing I can do to stop you, but regeneration happens AFTER you believe. Until you believe you are dead in trespasses and sins and cannot possibly be alive again.

Jhn 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

I'm not going to bother with you anymore Willis. I will talk to others, but you have sold yourself over to error. Believe whatever you want.

 

[Rippon]

I can continue this list till the chickens roost however it doesn't carry weight with these guys.....we have been there & done this multiple times unfortunately.

Are you serious? You are under the impression that just because I produced a list of notable Calvinists having John as their first name would cause a convinced Arminian to become a Calvinist? Now I've heard everything! :laugh:

 

[Rippon]

I'm not going to bother with you anymore Willis. I will talk to others, but you have sold yourself over to error. Believe whatever you want.

Willis is one of the nicest people on the BB and you act like that in reply to him?
Be very careful about using the terminology you have.

Your frustration level is at a low tolerance there winman. I bet you'd feel a whole lot better if he was nasty to you. He isn't and yet you get bent out of shape.

 

[Winman]

Willis is one of the nicest people on the BB and you act like that in reply to him?
Be very careful about using the terminology you have.

Your frustration level is at a low tolerance there winman. I bet you'd feel a whole lot better if he was nasty to you. He isn't and yet you get bent out of shape.

Listen to you, you are one of the nastiest persons here at BB. You have a lot of gall lecturing me.

You need to take a good look in the mirror hypocrite.

 

[Winman]

Willis is one of the nicest people on the BB and you act like that in reply to him?
Be very careful about using the terminology you have.

Your frustration level is at a low tolerance there winman. I bet you'd feel a whole lot better if he was nasty to you. He isn't and yet you get bent out of shape.

My frustration with Willis, is that he parrots Calvinist cliches like Yeshua1. He doesn't think anymore, he just repeats what he has been conditioned to believe. He says the exact same arguments that all Calvinists do.

What bothers me is that he knows different. He used to think. He used to be against Calvinism, and he knew why. He quoted scripture. Here is an example.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1975614&postcount=105

Here is another example;

Right there are two passages that shows our souls, which were dead in sins, were raised together in Christ. We are placed in Christ at the very point of salvation, and not before. We were dead in our sins until that point, and were dead spiritually. But we have passed from death unto life by being placed in Him at the point that salvation took place, and not one nanosecond before.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1948954&postcount=47

Willis used to know that a person is dead in sins until they believe, Willis used to repeatedly say it was error to believe regeneration precedes faith. And he knew why, he could give you the scriptures to back it up.

Brother Tom, I have much respect for you, much, much, much, and also for my DoG Brethern, and consider you co-laborers for the cause of Christ. but I just can't agree with the pre-faith regeneration.

Willis has every right to change his view if he wants to, but what irks me is how he simply parrots Calvinist cliches just like Yeshua1. If he could show scripture to back it up, that would not bother me.

Anybody can ask things like, "Can a corpse believe?" That's what I mean by a Calvinist cliche. It is meaningless, doesn't prove anything, and has no support in scripture.

That's not debating. If you don't have a real argument, keep your yap shut. We already got a bunch of mindless parrots here.

 

[convicted1]

Willis, you have NEVER shown that regeneration precedes faith. Oh, in your mind you may believe that is so, but in reality it is not. Regeneration does not mean to be taught or enlightened, it literally means to be made alive (generated) again (re). That is what the word means, you cannot simply choose to redefine it to fit your new found beliefs.

Now, if you want to continue to redefine this word, there is nothing I can do to stop you, but regeneration happens AFTER you believe. Until you believe you are dead in trespasses and sins and cannot possibly be alive again.

Jhn 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

I'm not going to bother with you anymore Willis. I will talk to others, but you have sold yourself over to error. Believe whatever you want.

Brother, show me where I parrot others? I haven't used the LBCF, WCF, the Blackrock Address, nor have I posted other theologians quotes in my posts, to the best of my knowledge. I stick with the scriptures.

But I would be lying if I said I was shocked you'd turn nasty on me. Deep down inside, I knew you would.

Off to the killfire you go.....

 

[RLBosley]

Permit me to add to the list of Calvinists of the past in no order:

John Gill
John Brine
John Bunyan
John Lightfoot
John Ryland Sr.
John Ryland Jr.
John Flavel
John Cotton
John Foxe
John Preston
John Hus(s)
John Wycliffe
John Knox
John Newton

And,last,but certainly not least,my namesake :John Rippon.

:laugh::thumbsup:

I can't believe I forgot Bunyan!

Good list. I wonder what it is about the name John?

 

[RLBosley]

1) Makes no sense and is not biblical.
2) Shows the mercy of God and is perfectly biblical.
3) Shows absolutely no justice and is most certainly not biblical.

Yup. :thumbsup:

 

[RLBosley]

Willis, you have NEVER shown that regeneration precedes faith. Oh, in your mind you may believe that is so, but in reality it is not. Regeneration does not mean to be taught or enlightened, it literally means to be made alive (generated) again (re). That is what the word means, you cannot simply choose to redefine it to fit your new found beliefs.

Now, if you want to continue to redefine this word, there is nothing I can do to stop you, but regeneration happens AFTER you believe. Until you believe you are dead in trespasses and sins and cannot possibly be alive again.

Jhn 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

I'm not going to bother with you anymore Willis. I will talk to others, but you have sold yourself over to error. Believe whatever you want.

It has indeed been shown to you, I did last week in another conversation! You simply refuse to accept it.

 

[RLBosley]

It is quite easy to show that faith is not a gift from God.

Mat 8:10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

Why would Jesus marvel at the centurion's great faith if God had given him that faith? That is absurd and nonsensical. Did Jesus forget that the centurion had been given great faith? Ridiculous.

Mar 6:6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

This verse is just the opposite, Jesus marvelled at his fellow countrymen's unbelief. Did Jesus forget that he had not given these men faith?

So, these verses easily demonstrate that men have their own faith. It makes no sense for Jesus to marvel at great faith, or unbelief if faith is a gift from God.

No it "easily demonstrates" no such thing. It easily demonstrates Jesus' full humanity, but reveals nothing regarding the order of salvation or the sovereignty of God over his creation.

Why do you continually go to passage that are not speaking of salvation, wrest them from their context and try to use them to support your view (John 1 regarding Nathaniel for example)?

Why not go to the passages that actually deal with salvation itself and use those to build your doctrine?

Passages like this:

[Jhn 6:36-37, 39, 44-45, 65 NASB] "But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. ... "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. ... "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. "It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. ... 65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

Or this:

[Jhn 8:43, 47 NASB] 43 "Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. ... 47 "He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God."

Or this:

[Act 13:47-48 NASB] 47 "For so the Lord has commanded us, 'I HAVE PLACED YOU AS A LIGHT FOR THE GENTILES, THAT YOU MAY BRING SALVATION TO THE END OF THE EARTH.'" 48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Or:

[Rom 8:28-30 NASB] 28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

I could continue on, but I will stop there.

This is easy to refute as well, 1 Pet 1:2 clearly says we are elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.

1 Pet 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

God's election is not free, is it based on something God foreknew. I believe that is faith, and we have direct statements in scripture that shows God knew from the beginning who believed not, therefore by the simple process of elimination he also knew from the beginning who believed.

Yes you believe election is based on faith. But you haven't even come close to proving it.

I've already explained what foreknowledge is, you either reject it (such as in this thread) or apparently can't understand it (such as in the Calvinism thread). Of course God knows who believes and who doesn't believe from the beginning. But what is the basis or source of this knowledge God has? Is he taking in knowledge about what free creatures will do in the future? Or is it knowledge based on knowing the end result of his sovereign will?

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

You have accused me multiple times of not quoting an entire passage to bolster my point, and yet here you do the same. Interesting.

What is the next verse?

[Jhn 6:65 NASB] 65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."


Yes Jesus knew who would believe and who wouldn't. Why? Because he knew who had been granted belief by the Father!

I didn't abuse it at all, it clearly shows Jesus "knew" who Nathanael was and that he was an "Israelite indeed" before he ever met him. This is foreknowledge of faith clearly shown in scripture.

Seriously???

You are the one in denial.

I've noticed a trend. As you debate more and more, you resort to ending each post with a snarky remark or outright slander. Why is that?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Are you serious? You are under the impression that just because I produced a list of notable Calvinists having John as their first name would cause a convinced Arminian to become a Calvinist? Now I've heard everything! :laugh:

Go jump in a lake. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Winman]

No it "easily demonstrates" no such thing. It easily demonstrates Jesus' full humanity, but reveals nothing regarding the order of salvation or the sovereignty of God over his creation.

Yes it does. It makes absolutely no sense for Jesus to marvel or be amazed at great faith if it is a gift of God, and it is equally as nonsensical to marvel at unbelief if faith is a gift from God.

Why do you continually go to passage that are not speaking of salvation, wrest them from their context and try to use them to support your view (John 1 regarding Nathaniel for example)?

Baloney, the subject was faith and whether it was a gift. The passages I showed both directly relate to that subject and both equally reveal your view to be nonsensical.

Why not go to the passages that actually deal with salvation itself and use those to build your doctrine?

There is not a different kind of faith in salvation, you cannot show that. The only thing different with faith is the OBJECT of that faith. Faith is not some magical mystical substance floating around. Your idea of faith is nothing short of superstition.

Passages like this:

[Jhn 6:36-37, 39, 44-45, 65 NASB] "But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. ... "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. ... "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. "It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. ... 65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

Those are easy to explain and I have explained them. Those that are drawn, those that come to Jesus are those that have been taught of the Father. They have listened and learned. Nothing magical there, just paying attention and learning from the word of God. Again, your view is mystical, a Roman Catholic type of religion.

Or this:

[Jhn 8:43, 47 NASB] 43 "Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. ... 47 "He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God."

This verse does not mean they were unable to hear Jesus's words, but that they were stubborn and obstinate and would not listen. A perfect example in scripture is Joseph's brothers.

Gen 37:4 And when his brethren saw that their father loved him more than all his brethren, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him.

Is scripture teaching Total Inability here? NO. Joseph's brothers could have spoken peacefully to him if they had not been so jealous and obstinate. Years later they are completely reconciled to Joseph and quite easily speak kindly to him.

This is how cultists interpret the Bible, they go through the scriptures searching for a word like "cannot" to try to prove what they have already determined to believe, Total Inability. And that is exactly what you did here. John 8 is not saying men cannot repent and listen to Jesus, only they would not.

Or this:

[Act 13:47-48 NASB] 47 "For so the Lord has commanded us, 'I HAVE PLACED YOU AS A LIGHT FOR THE GENTILES, THAT YOU MAY BRING SALVATION TO THE END OF THE EARTH.'" 48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

LOL, it doesn't say they were appointed to believe, it says they were appointed to eternal life. Yes, God has appointed that all who believe shall receive eternal life. You are reading Calvinism into a verse when it is not there.

Or:

[Rom 8:28-30 NASB] 28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

What does this have to do with faith?

I could continue on, but I will stop there.

Good, 'cause your argument wasn't makin' it.

Yes you believe election is based on faith. But you haven't even come close to proving it.

To the contrary, I showed 2 The 2:13 that says we are chosen "through" belief of the truth, and I showed a Presbyterian pastor who agreed with this interpretation. You did not refute that article.

I've already explained what foreknowledge is, you either reject it (such as in this thread) or apparently can't understand it (such as in the Calvinism thread). Of course God knows who believes and who doesn't believe from the beginning. But what is the basis or source of this knowledge God has? Is he taking in knowledge about what free creatures will do in the future? Or is it knowledge based on knowing the end result of his sovereign will?

No, you 've given me the "canned" re-definition that all Calvinists parrot. Foreknowledge means exactly what it says Fore (before) knowledge (knowledge). It simply means to know something before it happens. I know you will insist it means an intimate knowledge of someone, and it can mean that, but it also means to know events before they happen such as was shown in Acts 2:23;

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Is this verse speaking about some personal and intimate relationship? NOPE, it is saying Jesus was delivered by God's foreknowledge. Jesus knew the soldiers would come for him in the garden, and he allowed himself to be taken. This is speaking of knowing EVENTS before they happened.

So, you can insist all day long on your Calvinist redefinition of the word foreknowledge, and you will be in error all day long.

You have accused me multiple times of not quoting an entire passage to bolster my point, and yet here you do the same. Interesting.

What is the next verse?

[Jhn 6:65 NASB] 65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

This is going back to verse 44-45 where Jesus said no man can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him, and then Jesus explains how that is accomplished, every man that has been TAUGHT, that has HEARD and LEARNED from the Father comes to Jesus. Those persons who pay attention to the word of God and learn from it come to Jesus. Jesus did not say persons who come to him were magically zapped to come. Superstition.

Yes Jesus knew who would believe and who wouldn't. Why? Because he knew who had been granted belief by the Father!

No, Jesus has foreknowledge of faith. He knew "from the beginning" who believed not. Well, if he knows from the beginning who will not believe, then by simple process of elimination he also knew from the beginning who would believe.

Here you are directly being shown God has foreknowledge of faith, but you refuse to see it. Your loss.

Seriously???

I've noticed a trend. As you debate more and more, you resort to ending each post with a snarky remark or outright slander. Why is that?

If someone is sincere, and is really looking at evidence, I will patiently present evidence all day long. But when it is obvious someone is just jerking me around, then I tend to get a little sarcastic and "snarky" with them. They aren't going to listen anyway, so what difference does it make?

You aren't interested in learning, you will parrot the same old tired proof texts every other Calvinist parrots. And you misinterpret them the same way as you demonstrated with Acts 13:48. You have been conditioned by false doctrine to completely misinterpret what that verse is saying, it is not saying people are ordained or appointed to believe.

If people are ordained to believe, then those who are not ordained to believe are ordained to unbelief, which is a sin. This would make God the author of sin.

 

[Winman]

It has indeed been shown to you, I did last week in another conversation! You simply refuse to accept it.

It is impossible to show regeneration precedes faith, because it is impossible for that to be true.

No one can be spiritually alive until their sins are forgiven, and no one's sins are forgiven until they believe on Jesus. Therefore it is absolutely logically impossible to be regenerated before faith. Until you believe you are dead in sins and you will die in those sins unless you believe.

Jhn 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

Your view is logically impossible, it cannot be correct. If you had common sense and logic you would KNOW this is absolute truth.

 

[Yeshua1]

Where did this faith capacity come from? Do all sinners have this ability inherit within them?

Were Adam and Eve born changed into sinners by the fall, and did cain get that sin nature from them, as he murdered abel?

Where did THAT desire to kill come from? not from God!

And the lord already has written down ALL of those names of the redeemed from eternity past, so why does he need to "see their faith?"

 

[RLBosley]

Yes it does. It makes absolutely no sense for Jesus to marvel or be amazed at great faith if it is a gift of God, and it is equally as nonsensical to marvel at unbelief if faith is a gift from God.

So you belief that Jesus, the God who created all things, was surprised at some peoples faith or lack of it? He was caught off guard? Is that really what you believe?

There is not a different kind of faith in salvation, you cannot show that. The only thing different with faith is the OBJECT of that faith. Faith is not some magical mystical substance floating around. Your idea of faith is nothing short of superstition.

Who is talking about different kinds of faith!? Try and focus please.

Those are easy to explain and I have explained them. Those that are drawn, those that come to Jesus are those that have been taught of the Father. They have listened and learned. Nothing magical there, just paying attention and learning from the word of God. Again, your view is mystical, a Roman Catholic type of religion.

"Magical." Yep, because that is the term I used. "Roman Catholic type of religion".... says the Arminian. :laugh: Oh the irony!

Everyone reading, I would like you to behold the flailing Arminian. When rational debate and exegesis fails, start throwing random insults and strawmen out hoping something sticks.

Does the text say anything about these people learning from the written word? No. The teaching here is BY God not about God. As I showed you before, this goes back to OT prophesies regarding the nature of the New Covenant; that God would work in the hearts of his people and change them so that they all, all in the covenant, would know him. The drawing in John 6 is by the Father and it cannot fail to bring about salvation and is analogous to being taught by the Father.

This verse does not mean they were unable to hear Jesus's words, but that they were stubborn and obstinate and would not listen. A perfect example in scripture is Joseph's brothers.

That's exactly what the verse says!

[Jhn 8:43, 47 NASB] 43 "Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. ... 47 "He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God."

They CANNOT hear the words of Jesus. Obviously the physically hear, but still reject him (Which is also contrary to your false interpretation of John 6), demonstrating this hearing is a spiritual perception of the truth spoken by Christ. He says that they do not hear because they are not of God. So what then logically must be true to enable hearing? Being "of God!" One must be "of God" or belong to God as the NIV renders it, in order to be able to hear Christ and be saved! This would have been particularly damning to these Jews since, as Jews, they viewed themselves as being God's special people. Clearly just having the written word (as they did) was not enough for them to be "of God."

I know you don't like this, but this is the truth and it is plainly obvious.

This is how cultists interpret the Bible, they go through the scriptures searching for a word like "cannot" to try to prove what they have already determined to believe, Total Inability. And that is exactly what you did here. John 8 is not saying men cannot repent and listen to Jesus, only they would not.

Love you too Winman.

That might have actually had some truth if I was raised in Calvinism. Instead I was raised in your system, but over the past couple years have seen the total inability of the system to withstand scriptural scrutiny.

LOL, it doesn't say they were appointed to believe, it says they were appointed to eternal life. Yes, God has appointed that all who believe shall receive eternal life. You are reading Calvinism into a verse when it is not there.

I never said that the verse said they were appointed to believe. Again, you seem to either willfully ignore what is being said or you cannot understand.

"and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed."

As many as were appointed. This is a precise number of people who had already been appointed to eternal life. Not simply some ethereal concept that whoever believes will be appointed to eternal life, which isn't really appointing anyway. But specific individuals in this crowd had been already appointed to eternal life. The result? Belief. They had, in eternity past, been appointed, they heard the word of Christ proclaimed and then believed.

What does this have to do with faith?

All who are justified (through faith), were predestined and foreknown. None are lost. And it's God's choosing, not man's.

To the contrary, I showed 2 The 2:13 that says we are chosen "through" belief of the truth, and I showed a Presbyterian pastor who agreed with this interpretation. You did not refute that article.

OK now you prove yourself a liar. You clearly didn't actually read the article or my response. I don't need to refute the article because his conclusion was the same as mine!

No, you 've given me the "canned" re-definition that all Calvinists parrot. Foreknowledge means exactly what it says Fore (before) knowledge (knowledge). It simply means to know something before it happens. I know you will insist it means an intimate knowledge of someone, and it can mean that, but it also means to know events before they happen such as was shown in Acts 2:23;

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Is this verse speaking about some personal and intimate relationship? NOPE, it is saying Jesus was delivered by God's foreknowledge. Jesus knew the soldiers would come for him in the garden, and he allowed himself to be taken. This is speaking of knowing EVENTS before they happened.

So, you can insist all day long on your Calvinist redefinition of the word foreknowledge, and you will be in error all day long.

I never said that Acts 2:23 was speaking of a personal intimate relationship.

Also, I love that when you keep seeing the same answers from people, you believe the only possibility is that we are "parroting" others or each other. But when you keep bringing of the same arguments of other Arminians we are supposed to believe you are just providing good sound exegesis. :laugh:

Seriously?? Think!

This is going back to verse 44-45 where Jesus said no man can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him, and then Jesus explains how that is accomplished, every man that has been TAUGHT, that has HEARD and LEARNED from the Father comes to Jesus. Those persons who pay attention to the word of God and learn from it come to Jesus. Jesus did not say persons who come to him were magically zapped to come. Superstition.

That's not what the passage says. Taught by God and taught about God are two entirely different things. You continue to just make things up to support your view.

Snarky references to magical zapping with faith and "superstition" noted.

No, Jesus has foreknowledge of faith. He knew "from the beginning" who believed not. Well, if he knows from the beginning who will not believe, then by simple process of elimination he also knew from the beginning who would believe.

Here you are directly being shown God has foreknowledge of faith, but you refuse to see it. Your loss.

Why do you even have a Bible if you refuse to read it and try to understand?

For everyone's benefit, the passage in question:

[Jhn 6:64-65 NASB] 64 "But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

It is clear that believing and coming to Jesus are analogous. What is the condition coming to the Son? Having the ability to come/believe granted by the Father.

If someone is sincere, and is really looking at evidence, I will patiently present evidence all day long. But when it is obvious someone is just jerking me around, then I tend to get a little sarcastic and "snarky" with them. They aren't going to listen anyway, so what difference does it make?

You aren't interested in learning, you will parrot the same old tired proof texts every other Calvinist parrots. And you misinterpret them the same way as you demonstrated with Acts 13:48. You have been conditioned by false doctrine to completely misinterpret what that verse is saying, it is not saying people are ordained or appointed to believe.

If people are ordained to believe, then those who are not ordained to believe are ordained to unbelief, which is a sin. This would make God the author of sin.

Bull. You are not interested in actual conversation. You are far from patient.

I parrot Calvinists. That's all I do.

Apparently that's all any Calvinist knows how to do.

You however are the paragon of sincerity and patience. You have the only good consistent exegesis nor do you ever parrot anyone!

If only we could all be like Winman right?

Tell me, what church to you oversee? What books have you written? Someone as perfect as you and with such a gifting from God must clearly be an authoritative voice in the Christian Church, right?

 

[RLBosley]

It is impossible to show regeneration precedes faith, because it is impossible for that to be true.

No one can be spiritually alive until their sins are forgiven, and no one's sins are forgiven until they believe on Jesus. Therefore it is absolutely logically impossible to be regenerated before faith. Until you believe you are dead in sins and you will die in those sins unless you believe.

Jhn 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

Your view is logically impossible, it cannot be correct. If you had common sense and logic you would KNOW this is absolute truth.

You start with your conclusion in mind, not scripture. If you actual understand and agree with scripture, you will see that no one will believe until they are made alive. This is all in accordance with God's will, not the will of man.