The weak foundation of free will

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by webdog:
[QB] </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> When Jesus says, "No one CAN (has the ability to) come unto me unless," that is a clear statement that not everyone has the ability to do the thing that is needed.

No man can come unless drawn...BUT "...I will draw ALL MEN unto Me."</font>[/QUOTE]So, are you a universalist then? Because in the section I quoted in John 6, after Jesus says "unless the Father draws him," He then goes on to say, "and I will raise Him up on the last day." Jesus' point to the Pharisees (who didn't believe) is that the reason they couldn't is that they had not been given to Him by the Father (He hadn't drawn them).

In simple form, here is what Jesus said (from vs 35-44)

1) I am the water of life (35)
2) Everyone who believes in Me will never thirst (35)
3) You do not believe (36)
4) Everyone the Father gives me comes to me (37)
5) I will not cast that person (who came to me because they were given to me by the Father) out (37)
6) I came to do my Father's will (38)
7) My Father's will (NOTICE THIS) is that I keep all those who He gives to Me. (39)
8) AND the Father's will is that everyone who sees the Son and believes has everlasting life

*NOTE* - #8 IS A RESTATEMENT OF #7 FROM TWO DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW. ONE IS FROM THE FATHER'S (HE GIVES SOME TO JESUS). THE OTHER IS FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW (WE BELIEVE).

9) The Jews (like you) don't like this teaching (41-42)
10)Jesus tells them not to complain (43)
11)He tells them not to complain because they can't come to Him (or believe what He said) unless first drawn by the Father. (44)
12)Everyone drawn by the Father comes to Jesus and is raised up on the last day. (44)

That last point, from verse 44 compared with verse 37, is very important. Everyone (not some) who is drawn comes and is raised up. That is what we mean by effectual calling, which is just a term used to describe this very thing.

If you equate this drawing with the drawing in John 12:32 (IMPORTANT) and say that the all in John 12 is every single person who ever lived, then you have just made yourself a universalist.
Here is what you are saying:

No one believes unless they are drawn.
Everyone drawn comes.
God draws all men.
All men are saved.

Perhaps the NKJ is right in translating John 12 as "I will draw all peoples to myself." What they have interpreted this word "all" to refer to is all types of people, not just Jews.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by webdog:
I am not under the impression this verse is dealing with salvation. Paul is speaking to Christians. He is telling them that the "natural man" (separate from the "new" man which we become when justified) does not know the "things" of God. We still possess the "natural man" within us as sin nature. The "new man" DOES understand the things of God, as we have the "mind of Christ".

OK, here's my problem: you are equating the "natural man" with the flesh and saying that we have the natural man (flesh) and the new man. But, let me ask you a question. Who does the flesh fight against? Don't say the new man. It's the Spirit. The natural man is not put in opposition to the new man, because when we are made into a new man, the natural man no longer exists.

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

The natural man (old man), as well as someone who is in the flesh, as well as someone who is walking in darkness, are all phrases Paul uses to describe an unbeliever. In the same way Paul uses the phrases spiritual man (new man), walking in the Spirit, and walking in the light, to describe a believer.

I don't deny that believers sin and can do so for prolonged periods of time as the flesh and the Spirit battle. But Paul does not call those people natural (old), fleshly, or in the dark. Look closely at 1 Cor. 2. Paul says we are spiritual because we have received the Spirit of God. He doesn't say we receive the Spirit because we are spiritual.

 

[johnp.]

John, every single one of your repetitive quotes has been responded to by putting it in context to show that what was happening is NOT what you are claiming in terms of Calvinism and predestination.

That's fine by me Helen. The the message I was told to preach goes out again and again as those who oppose the grace of God keep telling me.

Dt 29:4 But to this day the LORD has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear.

There is no getting around this verse. You want it to read another way but you are wrong because it says that God never gave them eyes to see with even though He told them to make a choice of life and death. It is simple and bears repeating.

john.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Tim.

Just playing back at you Johnp. At times I laughed whole heartly at you, get frustrated at you, mad, or tired of you. But at times even you find a nugget that blesses me.

That's very kind of you to give me feedback.

I have seen Helen's post answering you two or three times for each of those.

Yes I know she told me and you confim me wrong again without scripture I see.

She has done a wonderful job and I could not improve on it.

I know.

She be smarter and more articulate then me be.

Yes, I know that as well.

What an interesting post.

john.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Calvi.

john.

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by Calvibaptist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by webdog:
I am not under the impression this verse is dealing with salvation. Paul is speaking to Christians. He is telling them that the "natural man" (separate from the "new" man which we become when justified) does not know the "things" of God. We still possess the "natural man" within us as sin nature. The "new man" DOES understand the things of God, as we have the "mind of Christ".

OK, here's my problem: you are equating the "natural man" with the flesh and saying that we have the natural man (flesh) and the new man. But, let me ask you a question. Who does the flesh fight against? Don't say the new man. It's the Spirit. The natural man is not put in opposition to the new man, because when we are made into a new man, the natural man no longer exists.

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

The natural man (old man), as well as someone who is in the flesh, as well as someone who is walking in darkness, are all phrases Paul uses to describe an unbeliever. In the same way Paul uses the phrases spiritual man (new man), walking in the Spirit, and walking in the light, to describe a believer.

I don't deny that believers sin and can do so for prolonged periods of time as the flesh and the Spirit battle. But Paul does not call those people natural (old), fleshly, or in the dark. Look closely at 1 Cor. 2. Paul says we are spiritual because we have received the Spirit of God. He doesn't say we receive the Spirit because we are spiritual. </font>[/QUOTE]By your reply, I'm taking it that you don't believe man has a sin (old) nature anymore. Is this correct?

 

[webdog]

So, are you a universalist then?

No.

Because in the section I quoted in John 6, after Jesus says "unless the Father draws him," He then goes on to say, "and I will raise Him up on the last day."

But what is the most important part you left out? "...that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have eternal life , and I will raise him up on the last day." I don't have the time right now to respond to your exegesis of 35-44, but I will when I have the time.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by webdog:
But what is the most important part you left out? "...that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have eternal life , and I will raise him up on the last day." I don't have the time right now to respond to your exegesis of 35-44, but I will when I have the time.

Actually, if you look at point #2 and point #8, I very clearly emphasized the fact that everyone who believes has ever lasting life. I even made an "all-caps" note after point #8 so you wouldn't miss it, and, yet, you still come out and say that I left it out.

Let me repeat myself once more: Calvinists (myself included) do not deny the demand and responsibility to believe. We just also don't deny the clear statements that say that not everyone can do that.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by webdog:
By your reply, I'm taking it that you don't believe man has a sin (old) nature anymore. Is this correct?

I believe that we struggle with the desire to sin. We struggle with the flesh. BUT, we do not have the sin nature. Our old man was crucified with him (Romans 6:6). If we still had the sin nature (old man), we would still be slaves of sin.

 

[webdog]

We just also don't deny the clear statements that say that not everyone can do that.

What "clear statements"? In the Bible?

I believe that we struggle with the desire to sin. We struggle with the flesh. BUT, we do not have the sin nature. Our old man was crucified with him (Romans 6:6). If we still had the sin nature (old man), we would still be slaves of sin.

If we do not have sin natures...why do we sin?
This view is the same held by the Evangelical Friends, who are as hyper arminian as they get. I believe it was John Macarthur who shot this down in one of his books. It was kind of like "oop, I made a mistake" instead of calling it sin, since the sin nature had been eradicated. We will not lose our sin nature until we are dead, physically.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by webdog:
What "clear statements"? In the Bible?

Do I need to throw John 6, 1 Cor. 2, Eph. 2, and Romans 8 at you AGAIN. I'm getting tired of saying the same thing over just because you don't like what the Bible says.

I believe it was John Macarthur who shot this down in one of his books. It was kind of like "oop, I made a mistake" instead of calling it sin, since the sin nature had been eradicated. We will not lose our sin nature until we are dead, physically.

I have listened to and read John MacArthur for over 20 years. He does not believe that we still have the sin nature in us. He believes we still sin and struggle with the flesh because we are still alive, but the sin nature is defeated on the cross. I believe the same as well.

The two-natures view is one that was promoted by Classical Dispensationalists for about the last 100 years. It has never been the view of Covenant Theology (they see us with a new nature) and is not the view of Progressive Dispensationalists.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Helen:
You have totally destroyed the meaning of 'choice'.

God is not a mocker. He has given each of us a real choice.

No, the Bible destroys YOUR meaning of the word "choice". God does not mock. He works all things according to the counsel of His own will. Just because you don't happen to think this or that makes sense to you doesn't change what the Bible says. And the Bible says we will not choose anything but rejection and sin unless God gives us the ability to do otherwise.

As johnp so rightly pointed out again and again:

Dt 29:4 But to this day the LORD has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear.

Let me add...

17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing [comes] by the word [rhema, or utterance] of God.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Calvibaptist:
The two-natures view is one that was promoted by Classical Dispensationalists for about the last 100 years. It has never been the view of Covenant Theology (they see us with a new nature) and is not the view of Progressive Dispensationalists.

I used to think in terms of the two-natures view. Then I read Romans as a book, not just pieces of it as lessons. IMO, having made the mistake myself, that is the single biggest mistake people make with Romans. They take a piece of it and build their views on that piece. But Paul's reasoning in Romans is a very long continuous unraveling of human nature and salvation. He explores one principle and then use that to unlock the next area of exploration.

Unless you (the editorial you, not you personally) read Romans that way, you'll get stuck on things like the two-natures view because you stop reading at Romans 7 and don't connect it to Romans 8.

 

[Timtoolman]

Originally posted by johnp.:
Hello Tim.


</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Just playing back at you Johnp. At times I laughed whole heartly at you, get frustrated at you, mad, or tired of you. But at times even you find a nugget that blesses me.

That's very kind of you to give me feedback.

I have seen Helen's post answering you two or three times for each of those.

Yes I know she told me and you confim me wrong again without scripture I see.

She has done a wonderful job and I could not improve on it.

I know.

She be smarter and more articulate then me be.

Yes, I know that as well.

What an interesting post.

john. </font>[/QUOTE]:You have been given more scripture then you can handle clearly. Helen, myself and Me4Him have drown you and refuted you and calvi in so much scripture that I am seeing how exactly my interptation of blinding is correct. YOu ignore and then repeat. I call it not knowing what to say, and wasting time. Johnp, Calvi you two serve a god who is the author of sin. I do not know this god. So the fact we are worshiping two different gods may be the reason we cannot agree. I have shown your theology to be pure nonsense, and totally ignorant of bible. There is not much left.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Timtoolman:
:You have been given more scripture then you can handle clearly. Helen, myself and Me4Him have drown you and refuted you and calvi in so much scripture that I am seeing how exactly my interptation of blinding is correct. YOu ignore and then repeat. I call it not knowing what to say, and wasting time. Johnp, Calvi you two serve a god who is the author of sin. I do not know this god. So the fact we are worshiping two different gods may be the reason we cannot agree. I have shown your theology to be pure nonsense, and totally ignorant of bible. There is not much left.

I feel left out. You forgot to include me this time.

 

[Timtoolman]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Timtoolman:
:You have been given more scripture then you can handle clearly. Helen, myself and Me4Him have drown you and refuted you and calvi in so much scripture that I am seeing how exactly my interptation of blinding is correct. YOu ignore and then repeat. I call it not knowing what to say, and wasting time. Johnp, Calvi you two serve a god who is the author of sin. I do not know this god. So the fact we are worshiping two different gods may be the reason we cannot agree. I have shown your theology to be pure nonsense, and totally ignorant of bible. There is not much left.

I feel left out. You forgot to include me this time. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, sorry, forgot. You too have been honest enough to show people reading this thread that you do serve the calvinist god who is a liar and deciever. But it seems your two cohorts are now trying to run from that. Hmmmm caught again.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by Timtoolman:
Oh, sorry, forgot. You too have been honest enough to show people reading this thread that you do serve the calvinist god who is a liar and deciever. But it seems your two cohorts are now trying to run from that. Hmmmm caught again.

Since the God that I serve is the God of Scripture, I'll assume that you are an idolator. My theology has not been formed by reading John Calvin. I formed my theology from the Scripture long before I read any calvinists. I will also assume that the God of Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, John Piper, John MacArthur, RC Sproul, etc. is not the god that you are talking about.

 

[Timtoolman]

Most of those men have never even come close to saying God is the author of sin. If so let me see it. I have read Spurgeon, Piper, MacArthur.
If you or any other claims that their god is the author of sin then they are not serving the true God.

Why you would assume I am an idolator, shows that a big problem we have had is your comprhension level. I am objecting to those that have a god that is a liar and deciever as the God of the Bible. You have tried to insult me but have shown that you have some poor reading skills is all.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Tim.

I am objecting to those that have a god that is a liar and deciever as the God of the Bible.

2KI 6:18 As the enemy came down toward him, Elisha prayed to the LORD, "Strike these people with blindness." So he struck them with blindness, as Elisha had asked. 19 Elisha told them, "This is not the road and this is not the city. Follow me, and I will lead you to the man you are looking for." And he led them to Samaria.

"Strike these people with blindness." Bang goes free will. HaHa!

Elisha told them, "This is not the road... One lie.

...and this is not the city. Two lies.

...and I will lead you to the man you are looking for. He was the man they were looking for! HaHa!

2KI 8:10 Elisha answered, "Go and say to him, `You will certainly recover'; but the LORD has revealed to me that he will in fact die."

Elisha's running around telling porkie pies all over the place man don't you read your bible? And God is complicit, if you will, as Elisha is God's mouth piece.

For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 2 Thess 2:11.

Why you would assume I am an idolator...

I have shown you to be an idolator by your insistance that we must share the love due to God with others. Scripture clearly tells us that we must love the Lord with our whole being not share it out to others. The love of our Father produces a state of love for others to bask in.

john.

 

[Timtoolman]

JOhnp I tire of you. I have shown the absurdity of your theology that loving God is putting Him first, and not meaning hate all others. YOu stand in complete sillyness. And contradicton to scriptures.
And I have not said God does not blind, but I have shown that man has choice because God does. You go round and round I am not. YOu have been answered many many times over and over again that you are following the teachings of a man. Not God.
And the madder you get the more ridiculous you get. Step back and take a breath. Now we are switvhing to Elisa lied. No, you have stated your god is a lair and deciever. It is in your post. You said it now don't cry complicated. Either your god is or isn't.