Calvin did not invent the doctrines of grace

[Everlasting-Grace]

Well, sorry to say, I know quite a bit about what God has revealed in His Word on the subject of Sovereignty. It was and is one of my most studied subjects, for over thirty years. You cannot truly understand God's gift of Salvation until you get His Sovereignty right. And please, do not pit God's Love against His Sovereignty.

Man has a responsibility in his Salvation, it's called Conversion but conversion cannot take place apart from Regeneration.

Well. Yu have salvation wrong. You have Gods justice/love/ and soverignty at a odds with one another

maybe you should study God. And stop studying your calvinist view.

God will not overrule his justice and make one person alive while still under the penalty of sin

justificaion must satisfy his justice before that can happen

we are justified through faith.. not of ourselves. It is the gift of God..

I’f God could over rule his justice for even a few minutes, he might as well as overruled it forever and just forgave people/ he owuld not have to have suffered then But Gods love can not over rule his justice But Gods love DID satisfy Gods justice..

 

[ButterflyJones]

this is what happens when people have to make a book to explain a simple term "free will" because the term does not suit your doctrine

free will by definition is this. I am free to do or chose what I chose to trust in.

any decision anyone makes is based on what they trust in.. they freely chose to follow their trust.

It's unfortunate you didn't read the article . I offered it to assist in clearing up the confusion such as you demonstrate here after that article post.

 

[awelight]

Well. Yu have salvation wrong. You have Gods justice/love/ and soverignty at a odds with one another

maybe you should study God. And stop studying your calvinist view.

God will not overrule his justice and make one person alive while still under the penalty of sin

justificaion must satisfy his justice before that can happen

we are justified through faith.. not of ourselves. It is the gift of God..

I’f God could over rule his justice for even a few minutes, he might as well as overruled it forever and just forgave people/ he owuld not have to have suffered then But Gods love can not over rule his justice But Gods love DID satisfy Gods justice..

At this point, the conversation must be ended. For Scripture does not tell us to throw things at one another but to try to guide one to the truth with patience. You show know desire to question me about these things but just keep throwing you views one after the other. to continue in this way, is not only unfruitful but borders on Sin.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

It's unfortunate you didn't read the article . I offered it to assist in clearing up the confusion such as you demonstrate here after that article post.

I read the article..

All it did was show me someone went to great length to try to explain free will in a way that supports them. And not what free will realy is.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

At this point, the conversation must be ended. For Scripture does not tell us to throw things at one another but to try to guide one to the truth with patience. You show know desire to question me about these things but just keep throwing you views one after the other. to continue in this way, is not only unfruitful but borders on Sin.

My friend, I talk to others as they talk to me

You have been throwing your views at me since we started.

I am just showing you WHY I can not see it your way. And in turn asking you to explain why you have God appear to contradict himself.

Lets not be hypocrites and own up to what we are doing

If you want to run however. Feel free.

 

[ButterflyJones]

"That is Reactionism at it's finest. Man does - God reacts."

I think that what @awelight is saying is that "reactionism" is not the EXCLUSIVE mode of action/operative principle.

Maybe we can better understand what you rightly observed as the natural mind exercising rationalism in trying to explain or defend ones belief and subsequent reaction to thinking they are co-redemptors with Christ in their salvation.

 

[awelight]

My friend, I talk to others as they talk to me

You have been throwing your views at me since we started.

I am just showing you WHY I can not see it your way. And in turn asking you to explain why you have God appear to contradict himself.

Lets not be hypocrites and own up to what we are doing

If you want to run however. Feel free.

That proves my point - your words were unkind and unnecessary. In particular the last sentence. You say you were asking me to explain myself, yet looking over the posts, I see no questions from you at all.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

Maybe we can better understand what you rightly observed as the natural mind exercising rationalism in trying to explain or defend ones belief and subsequent reaction to thinking they are co-redemptors with Christ in their salvation.

When a person is in danger and is facing certain death without rescue. And a rescuer is sent, they have 2 choices

trust the one who came to rescue and live

chose to not have faith in the one who was sent to rescue and die

the one who had faith in the rescuer did nto save himself. Or help save himself. He was totally helpless..

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

That proves my point - your words were unkind and unnecessary. In particular the last sentence. You say you were asking me to explain myself, yet looking over the posts, I see no questions from you at all.

Yeah, Blame shift.. I am used to that.

when one makes a statement, you can answer that statement, or ignore it. Totally.

You have not reacted to my statement about Gods soverignty and his live

You have not responded to moses lifting the serpent

You have not responded to the fact Jesus did not say born again to believe, he said believe to be born again.

 

[ButterflyJones]

I read the article..

All it did was show me someone went to great length to try to explain free will in a way that supports them. And not what free will realy is.

Dr. R.C Sproul doesn't know what free will is, but you do?

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

Dr. R.C Sproul doesn't know what free will is, but you do?

Who said he does?

are you a follower of man or a follower of God?

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

Dr. R.C Sproul doesn't know what free will is, but you do?

Free will is what it says free will. The freedom to chose.

It does not matter what anyone else says.. that is free will.

if anyone has to write a book about it. Then somethign is wrong.

 

[awelight]

Dr. R.C Sproul doesn't know what free will is, but you do?

Sadly, he doesn't realize that free will does not exist - in man because he doesn't understand Sovereignty.

In order to have free will, one must be totally sovereign over his/her choices. agree?

 

[ButterflyJones]

When a person is in danger and is facing certain death without rescue. And a rescuer is sent, they have 2 choices

trust the one who came to rescue and live

chose to not have faith in the one who was sent to rescue and die

the one who had faith in the rescuer did nto save himself. Or help save himself. He was totally helpless..

I would suggest that is a worldly analogy and likely correct.

However, if the one deemed to be I need of saving is incapable of understanding that due to their worldly self-absorbed consciousness, they cannot exercise faith in needing rescue. Because in their mind they think they and their life is perfectly fine as is.

Whereas scripture tells us why that is. To the natural mind the things of the rescuer, God, are foolishness.

Only the Holy Spirit changing that person's consciousness is that person able to then comprehend their state of mind and being. And receive the rescue that is offered them.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

I would suggest that is a worldly analogy and likely correct.

However, if the one deemed to be I need of saving is incapable of understanding that due to their worldly self-absorbed consciousness, they cannot exercise faith in needing rescue. Because in their mind they think they and their life is perfectly fine as is.

Whereas scripture tells us why that is. To the natural mind the things of the rescuer, God, are foolishness.

Only the Holy Spirit changing that person's consciousness is that person able to then comprehend their state of mind and being. And receive the rescue that is offered them.

Thats just the point

You think they can ot understand they deserve condemnation. Paul said they can, and not only they can, they do, thus are without excuse (romans 1)

jesus said to enter the kingdom of God they must become poor in spirit (literally bankrupt) You can not become poor in spirit unless you are capable of understanding the very fact you are lost without hope

Then he tells us we must have faith, faith comes by hearing. It does not good to hear if we can not understand.. But it makes total sense if we are blind because we do not believe (we do not want to see what is true about us)

again, John 3.. He who believes is not condemned

Not he who is born again

The example I gave is a perfect example. Because it brings to knowledge just what we are under spiritually. Dead, unless we are rescued.. The one in my example does not need to know how he is rescued to be rescued. He just needs to know he is dead if he does not allow the rescuer to rescue him.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

Sadly, he doesn't realize that free will does not exist - in man because he doesn't understand Sovereignty.

In order to have free will, one must be totally sovereign over his/her choices. agree?

I understand it perfectly.

I just do not focus on one of Gods attributes, I focus on them all

Did you not just mock me for tryign to force my belief on you or whatever. Look here at you mocking me..

Practice what you preach much??

 

[ButterflyJones]

Free will is what it says free will. The freedom to chose.

It does not matter what anyone else says.. that is free will.

if anyone has to write a book about it. Then somethign is wrong.

I would suggest the error in understanding something seemingly so simple as the definition of free will is when it is cross compared to and is portrayed as able to overcome or conflict with God's will and Sovereignty.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

I would suggest the error in understanding something seemingly so simple as the definition of free will is when it is cross compared to and is portrayed as able to overcome or conflict with God's will and Sovereignty.

See, Gods will and soverignty again

what about Gods justice and Gods love

I would suggest the error in understanding of free will is based on not looking at the whole council and character of God. But only looking at a few of his traits.

 

[awelight]

I understand it perfectly.

I just do not focus on one of Gods attributes, I focus on them all

Did you not just mock me for tryign to force my belief on you or whatever. Look here at you mocking me..

Practice what you preach much??

I was not mocking you, I was chatting with another. After all this is an open chat session. I was trying to help the another person understand why you believe in free will and why it is wrong.

 

[ButterflyJones]

Thats just the point

You think they can ot understand they deserve condemnation. Paul said they can, and not only they can, they do, thus are without excuse (romans 1)

jesus said to enter the kingdom of God they must become poor in spirit (literally bankrupt) You can not become poor in spirit unless you are capable of understanding the very fact you are lost without hope

Then he tells us we must have faith, faith comes by hearing. It does not good to hear if we can not understand.. But it makes total sense if we are blind because we do not believe (we do not want to see what is true about us)

again, John 3.. He who believes is not condemned

Not he who is born again

The example I gave is a perfect example. Because it brings to knowledge just what we are under spiritually. Dead, unless we are rescued.. The one in my example does not need to know how he is rescued to be rescued. He just needs to know he is dead if he does not allow the rescuer to rescue him.

You misrepresent Paul's letter, epistle, in 1 Corinthians 2.

This invalidates the argument in toto because the premise you begin with in your rebuttal is not at all true regarding Paul's teaching.