The Idea Of Free Will

[Dave G]

Question remains the same and unanswered. Why can’t you use the narrative?

I understand the narrative just fine, Marty.
Why can't you accept the declarative?

The verses that are always argued over would have to use big font to fill a page.

Regrettably, there shouldn't be any verses that are argued over.

If you can convince someone the 490th time, you might want to use the rest of the Bible.

The verses cited should do the job, in my estimation.

I don't see the problem...
God's children believe God's words.
All of them, not just some of them.

For example, if I quote this:
" For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." ( John 3:16 ).

It has just as much "weight" as this:
" The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity." ( Psalms 5:5 ).

John 10:27 is the rule...Christ's sheep "hear" His voice.
They know Him, and they follow Him...not men;

Not John Calvin, and not John Wesley.
Not John R. Rice, and not John MacArthur.

His voice is every word ( Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4 ) that He delivers...whether through inspiration and the spoken word, as He gave Paul "utterance" ( Acts of the Apostles 2:4, Ephesians 6:19 ), or in the written word, as He gave men inspiration through the Holy Ghost.

Acts of the Apostles 13:48 is just as true as John 3:16.
John 3:36 is just as true as John 10:26.
Psalms 5:5 and Psalms 11:5 are just as true as John 3:16.
Romans 9:14-18 is equally as true as 1 Timothy 2:3-4.

God loves and God hates.
God saves and God damns to Hell.

The saved love Him and the rest of the world hates Him.

To me, it's not the words that are the problem...it's the willingness by many who profess Christ to actually receive ( welcome ) them as meaning what they say:
Literally, grammatically, and in their proper contexts with all the others.

 

[Dave G]

John 20:31
Romans 1:16
Romans 10:17

God's Spirit does the work, along with the word.

Apart from the word, no one "hears".
Apart from the Spirit's working, no one "hears".

One must have ears to hear, and eyes to see ( Matthew 11:15 ).
One cannot be a "natural man" ( 1 Corinthians 2:14 )...one who thinks that the things of the Spirit are foolishness to them.
One cannot be one of the perishing, who, when they hear the preaching of the cross, think that it is foolishness...they must be one of the ones that are saved, that, to them, that preaching is the power of God ( 1 Corinthians 1:18 ).

His words must be spiritually discerned by someone who can understand them, spiritually ( John 8:47 ).

 

[Dave G]

Remember, God also had Peter write that He was not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance.

The "us-ward" is the "beloved" from verse 8, roby.
The ones He is not willing that any should perish, are the same ones He is not willing should perish in John 6:39.

Christ's sheep.

 

[Dave G]

Man can't save himself, so it's a contradiction to say he chooses to be saved.

I agree.

What's wrong with leaving some things to mystery?

Because how God saves someone is not a mystery...it's revealed in His word ( Psalms 65:4, Romans 8:29-30, 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, etc ).

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

God's Spirit does the work, along with the word.

Apart from the word, no one "hears".
Apart from the Spirit's working, no one "hears".

One must have ears to hear, and eyes to see ( Matthew 11:15 ).
One cannot be a "natural man" ( 1 Corinthians 2:14 )...one who thinks that the things of the Spirit are foolishness to them.
One cannot be one of the perishing, who, when they hear the preaching of the cross, think that it is foolishness...they must be one of the ones that are saved, that, to them, that preaching ios the power of God ( 1 Corinthians 1:18 ).

His word must be spiritually discerned by someone who can understand them, spiritually ( John 8:47 ).

Amen

 

[MB]

The Apostle Paul did not introduce any rabbit trail, but rather he was explaining the reality of post-fall man.
For you to understand this, you need to connect the dots.
if you are really searching you would do this.
We can only offer scripture. If you discount it, there is nothing else to offer you.

Paul would disagree with you. The scripture you offer does not support your theories. I already understand Calvinism to be a false doctrine because it is not supported by scripture. Total depravity is not of scripture. it's a doctrine of man.
MB

 

[MB]

Of course there are no limitations if you take the verse out of context of the whole of Scripture.

Even in the context you showed it still says "all men". You're just grabbing at straws. Everyone there would also agree that He meant" all men" This destroys your doctrine. You lost the argument.
MB

 

[loDebar]

Of course there are no limitations if you take the verse out of context of the whole of Scripture.

David, prove your point.

 

[Reformed1689]

Even in the context you showed it still says "all men". You're just grabbing at straws. Everyone there would also agree that He meant" all men" This destroys your doctrine. You lost the argument.
MB

Not grabbing at straws. The context shows he was explaining all types of men (both Jew and Gentile) would be part of the Kingdom not just Jews. THAT is the context and that is what all men means in that verse.

 

[Reformed1689]

David, prove your point.

The proof is that only His sheep hear his voice.

 

[Iconoclast]

Paul would disagree with you. The scripture you offer does not support your theories. I already understand Calvinism to be a false doctrine because it is not supported by scripture. Total depravity is not of scripture. it's a doctrine of man.
MB

You are free to oppose yourself..If you want to search for truth it is found in scripture, not emotional objections. When you turn from scripture there is no truth to be found.

 

[MB]

Not grabbing at straws. The context shows he was explaining all types of men (both Jew and Gentile) would be part of the Kingdom not just Jews. THAT is the context and that is what all men means in that verse.

No so David you just keep trying to change what the Bible says by adding your own nonsense.
MB

 

[MB]

You are free to oppose yourself..If you want to search for truth it is found in scripture, not emotional objections. When you turn from scripture there is no truth to be found.

Emotional objections hehehehehehe. Your funny!
MB

 

[Reformed1689]

No so David you just keep trying to change what the Bible says by adding your own nonsense.
MB

I didn't change anything. You take one verse out of context and make it say something it doesn't actually say. Not to mention your viewpoint makes you disagree with other Scripture.

Let me ask you this. What about people who have never heard the Gospel. Specifically, let's talk about people in unreached jungles. They still exist. What was their choice to reject the Gospel? How did they specifically reject that Jesus died for their sins if they don't even know that happened?

You cannot reconcile that with your theology. Romans 1 has been tossed around here but that only says they know about God based on creation. It says nothing about knowing the Gospel. You cannot know the Gospel without actually receiving the Gospel.

 

[MB]

The proof is that only His sheep hear his voice.

Are you sure of that. I've read that the Pharisee's also heard Christ and argued with Him. They were not sheep they were adversaries.
MB

 

[Reformed1689]

Are you sure of that. I've read that the Pharisee's also heard Christ and argued with Him. They were not sheep they were adversaries.
MB

Wow, this doesn't even deserve a response it is such a ignorant comment.

 

[loDebar]

The proof is that only His sheep hear his voice.

Are they unable to hear?

 

[MB]

I didn't change anything. You take one verse out of context and make it say something it doesn't actually say. Not to mention your viewpoint makes you disagree with other Scripture.

Let me ask you this. What about people who have never heard the Gospel. Specifically, let's talk about people in unreached jungles. They still exist. What was their choice to reject the Gospel? How did they specifically reject that Jesus died for their sins if they don't even know that happened?

You cannot reconcile that with your theology. Romans 1 has been tossed around here but that only says they know about God based on creation. It says nothing about knowing the Gospel. You cannot know the Gospel without actually receiving the Gospel.

Poor David what a good Calvinist you are trying so hard to convince me of false doctrine. Why? I wonder. Do you think my faith to be weak enough to become what ever you would like to mold me into. hehehehehehe You are funny David I will never be a Calvinist.
MB

 

[Reformed1689]

Poor David what a good Calvinist you are trying so hard to convince me of false doctrine. Why? I wonder. Do you think my faith to be weak enough to become what ever you would like to mold me into. hehehehehehe You are funny David I will never be a Calvinist.
MB

So rather than actually answer the argument, because you can't, you attack me instead? That says all we need to know folks. You lost.

 

[MB]

Wow, this doesn't even deserve a response it is such a ignorant comment.

Now you are just trying so hard to make me mad Hehehehehehehehehe! You really are funny David. You fail in debate everytime you try.You do seem somewhat similar to the Pharisee's your self. Even you can hear God. hehehehehehehehe!
MB