The Absence of Free Will

UnitedWithChrist · Sep 30, 2019

By the way, I don't think that those who believe in libertarian free will have ANY basis for believing that Scripture is inerrant and inspired.

If you believe in libertarian free will, there is no reason to think that God inspired the men who wrote Scripture to do so, in a manner that addresses the situation at hand, using their own abilities, talents, and knowledge, while still writing Scripture in such a manner that the believer can consider it to be his authority, properly understood, transcending the gap between the audience's context and his own context.

Compatibilism perfectly accounts for the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture. Libertarian free will does not.

Leighton Flowers, Jesse Morrell, Jerry Walls and countless other "authorities" can claim libertarian free will all day long and I wouldn't be swayed. I already mentioned the intricate shadows and types that are embedded within Scripture, and how they were fulfilled in a manner that were very consistent. Both the shadows and types, and the fulfillment, were fairly detailed and convey spiritual lessons.

Like I have said, I do believe in creaturely free will, but it is subordinate to the person's fallen or redeemed nature, and is ultimately subordinate to God's sovereignty. Either passively or actively, God decrees all that happens. He either allows it, or causes it.

And, those who are attempting to deny God's sovereignty are dishonoring Him, if they are believers, because they are not honoring His work in their lives.

UnitedWithChrist · Sep 30, 2019

Here's a good article refuting libertarian free will. It addresses some of the claims made on this thread.

My apologies as I posted it on another thread relating to logic in error.

ForestGreenCook · Sep 30, 2019

Magenta said:

I do not rely on ANY MAN'S private interpretation, but I do rely upon the Holy Spirit's revelation of the interpretation.

Melach · Sep 30, 2019

UnitedWithChrist said:

this looks like calvinist advertisement. but everyone believes and has believed in free will its only the calvinist that dont. i dont know why calvinist waste so much time writing this things when nobody has the will to think other ways God just predestinated me to not be calvinist.

UnitedWithChrist · Sep 30, 2019

Roughsoul1991 said:

You are using proof-texting without looking at the context. That is one of the issues with false teachings.

Firstly, you are claiming that compatibilists believe God forces the believer to actions. Wrong, and I think you're smart enough to know that. It is a straw man, much like your puppetmaster caricature. Compatibilism teaches that no violence is done to man's free will, but at the same time God's sovereign will is always realized. There are different degradations of God's will that need to be distinguished, and I won't go into that at this point.

As a younger man, I belonged to a cult and you are basically practicing deceitful techniques in order to misrepresent, just like they did to Christians.

Two, no one claims God is the author of sin, but he did permissively decree it. He has exhaustive foreknowledge (Is 46:9-10). He didn't need to create Lucifer or any human beings if he didn't want sin to exist. And, he allowed the temptation in the Garden. He had purpose behind allowing the sin of the angels and the sin of mankind, and that purpose will glorify him ultimately.

The only response I can see regarding anything I have said is that you don't believe God knew sin would occur, and that would make him the "dummy god" of the open theists.

Three, by citing Romans 2, are you claiming there is a method of salvation outside of Christ? I hope not, as that would violate core Christianity. Justification is by faith in Jesus Christ alone. I am not sure why you brought that up, though.

Four, regarding 1 Tim 2:3-4, Paul is addressing the need to pray for different KINDS of people, including rulers. There are all kinds of statements in the NT concerning this. Whether it is Gentile or Jew, free or slave, male or female, noble or common...God decrees that all kinds of people will respond to the gospel. Apparently some were withholding prayer toward ruling authorities.

UnitedWithChrist · Sep 30, 2019

(continued)

Five, concerning Deut 30, have you read the whole book of Deuteronomy? It seems like some proof-texter has indoctrinated you, just like the cultists that I followed as a young man. Read Deut 29-30, then come back and tell me why Israel would not choose to follow God. Hint: they didn't have the right spirit....they were not born again. God told them to choose, but they didn't have the heart to choose, and the text admits that. Some few in Israel were empowered with God's Spirit but the majority were not.

See these Scriptures:

Deuteronomy 29:4 4 But to this day the Lord has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear.
(ESV)

What did they need?

Deuteronomy 30:6 And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live
(ESV)

Did ancient Israel have a heart to respond? NO. But, Moses prophesied that at some point, they would have that kind of heart.

Regeneration precedes faith. The heart determines the actions. And, God needs to give the person that heart that causes them to respond in faith and repentance. When he gives them the heart, then they respond.

This is why Reformed theology is correct. Regeneration precedes faith, and the actions flow from the changed heart. If that means not all are saved, then so be it.

I certainly don't believe in decisional regeneration. I don't believe in prevenient grace. It's not taught anywhere in Scripture. Instead, it is taught that the heart determines the actions, and the way the heart is changed is a monergistic endeavor (God does it). People don't change their own hearts. God points out the need for their hearts to be changed, but at the same time they won't respond unless their hearts are changed. And, God doesn't do that for everyone obviously.

Is that wrong? This assumes entitlement, that everyone is entitled to salvation. I don't believe that. It is counter-grace. Grace requires that salvation is an act of God's undeserving kindness toward the person. If he doesn't choose to save some, that's his prerogative, or it's not grace. God doesn't owe rebel sinners anything except eternal punishment.

Am I claiming God is a respecter of persons? No, he saves people of all different types. In fact, he saves some of the worst people to make his glory known in a clearer way. Read 1 Corinthians 1. No one can boast of anything except the LORD.

Six, regarding Romans 6, the audience is BELIEVERS, not unbelievers. We are talking about regenerated individuals who have a heart to respond. They have been united with Christ, and share in his energies. Because of their union with Christ, they are able to bear fruit. Paul was reminding them of the reality (the fact that they have been joined with Christ) and the imperatives which flow from this (obedience and good fruit).

The basic teaching involves identity and economy. The believer's identity is that he is joined with Christ, and because of this, he shares in Christ's legal status. As well, he is joined to Christ in a spiritual sense. Paul tells the believer that he is to produce fruit, because of this new status. In fact, he cannot fail to produce fruit, long term, due to this union. He is joined to Jesus, just like a branch is joined to the vine, and the life-giving nutrients flow from the vine to the branch.

It is true that the believer can frustrate such growth, and that is why Paul is pointing out their obligation to produce it. However, it isn't even really them producing it; it is their vital connection to Jesus that is producing it. At the same time, they were to be diligent and fearful about failing to produce it, as other passages warn. No one wants to stand before Jesus in a shameful condition at the judgment.

Anyways it seems like you'd do better reading the Bible looking at it in a biblical theology sort of way, instead of proof-texting and attempting to come up with a philosophical system and impose it upon the text. I am into biblical theology, and it just so happens that Reformed theology reflects the facts garnered in reading Scripture using biblical theology.

Additionally, there's a reason why some of the greatest biblical theologians and systematic theologians are Reformed. It's because they are organized and systematic. I have yet to read other systematic theologians that make much sense. I focused mostly on synergistic teachers up until the last six years or so, and then became more acquainted with Reformed authors. I find the difference like night and day. Reformed people are more coherent and more systematic than synergists, and reflect Scripture better.

You should also acknowledge that libertarian free will is a PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEM and not a biblical system. It relies heavily on presuppositions imported from philosophy. Reformed theology relies on exegesis and not a philosophical system. In fact, most Reformed people are offended by Reformed theology, especially initially.

ForestGreenCook · Sep 30, 2019

UnitedWithChrist said:

(continued)

Five, concerning Deut 30, have you read the whole book of Deuteronomy? It seems like some proof-texter has indoctrinated you, just like the cultists that I followed as a young man. Read Deut 29-30, then come back and tell me why Israel would not choose to follow God. Hint: they didn't have the right spirit....they were not born again. God told them to choose, but they didn't have the heart to choose, and the text admits that. Some few in Israel were empowered with God's Spirit but the majority were not.

See these Scriptures:

Deuteronomy 29:4 4 But to this day the Lord has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear.
(ESV)

What did they need?

Deuteronomy 30:6 And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live
(ESV)

Did ancient Israel have a heart to respond? NO. But, Moses prophesied that at some point, they would have that kind of heart.

Regeneration precedes faith. The heart determines the actions. And, God needs to give the person that heart that causes them to respond in faith and repentance. When he gives them the heart, then they respond.

This is why Reformed theology is correct. Regeneration precedes faith, and the actions flow from the changed heart. If that means not all are saved, then so be it.

I certainly don't believe in decisional regeneration. I don't believe in prevenient grace. It's not taught anywhere in Scripture. Instead, it is taught that the heart determines the actions, and the way the heart is changed is a monergistic endeavor (God does it). People don't change their own hearts. God points out the need for their hearts to be changed, but at the same time they won't respond unless their hearts are changed. And, God doesn't do that for everyone obviously.

Is that wrong? This assumes entitlement, that everyone is entitled to salvation. I don't believe that. It is counter-grace. Grace requires that salvation is an act of God's undeserving kindness toward the person. If he doesn't choose to save some, that's his prerogative, or it's not grace. God doesn't owe rebel sinners anything except eternal punishment.

Am I claiming God is a respecter of persons? No, he saves people of all different types. In fact, he saves some of the worst people to make his glory known in a clearer way. Read 1 Corinthians 1. No one can boast of anything except the LORD.

Six, regarding Romans 6, the audience is BELIEVERS, not unbelievers. We are talking about regenerated individuals who have a heart to respond. They have been united with Christ, and share in his energies. Because of their union with Christ, they are able to bear fruit. Paul was reminding them of the reality (the fact that they have been joined with Christ) and the imperatives which flow from this (obedience and good fruit).

The basic teaching involves identity and economy. The believer's identity is that he is joined with Christ, and because of this, he shares in Christ's legal status. As well, he is joined to Christ in a spiritual sense. Paul tells the believer that he is to produce fruit, because of this new status. In fact, he cannot fail to produce fruit, long term, due to this union. He is joined to Jesus, just like a branch is joined to the vine, and the life-giving nutrients flow from the vine to the branch.

It is true that the believer can frustrate such growth, and that is why Paul is pointing out their obligation to produce it. However, it isn't even really them producing it; it is their vital connection to Jesus that is producing it. At the same time, they were to be diligent and fearful about failing to produce it, as other passages warn. No one wants to stand before Jesus in a shameful condition at the judgment.

Anyways it seems like you'd do better reading the Bible looking at it in a biblical theology sort of way, instead of proof-texting and attempting to come up with a philosophical system and impose it upon the text. I am into biblical theology, and it just so happens that Reformed theology reflects the facts garnered in reading Scripture using biblical theology.

Additionally, there's a reason why some of the greatest biblical theologians and systematic theologians are Reformed. It's because they are organized and systematic. I have yet to read other systematic theologians that make much sense. I focused mostly on synergistic teachers up until the last six years or so, and then became more acquainted with Reformed authors. I find the difference like night and day. Reformed people are more coherent and more systematic than synergists, and reflect Scripture better.

You should also acknowledge that libertarian free will is a PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEM and not a biblical system. It relies heavily on presuppositions imported from philosophy. Reformed theology relies on exegesis and not a philosophical system. In fact, most Reformed people are offended by Reformed theology, especially initially.

I like your thoughts. God get all of the glory and man gets zero.

Magenta · Sep 30, 2019

ForestGreenCook said:

It is true I have not read every single post in this thread

I happened upon that one on a page I was reading and thought perhaps it fit the criteria.

ForestGreenCook · Sep 30, 2019

UnitedWithChrist said:

(continued)

Five, concerning Deut 30, have you read the whole book of Deuteronomy? It seems like some proof-texter has indoctrinated you, just like the cultists that I followed as a young man. Read Deut 29-30, then come back and tell me why Israel would not choose to follow God. Hint: they didn't have the right spirit....they were not born again. God told them to choose, but they didn't have the heart to choose, and the text admits that. Some few in Israel were empowered with God's Spirit but the majority were not.

See these Scriptures:

Deuteronomy 29:4 4 But to this day the Lord has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear.
(ESV)

What did they need?

Deuteronomy 30:6 And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live
(ESV)

Did ancient Israel have a heart to respond? NO. But, Moses prophesied that at some point, they would have that kind of heart.

Regeneration precedes faith. The heart determines the actions. And, God needs to give the person that heart that causes them to respond in faith and repentance. When he gives them the heart, then they respond.

This is why Reformed theology is correct. Regeneration precedes faith, and the actions flow from the changed heart. If that means not all are saved, then so be it.

I certainly don't believe in decisional regeneration. I don't believe in prevenient grace. It's not taught anywhere in Scripture. Instead, it is taught that the heart determines the actions, and the way the heart is changed is a monergistic endeavor (God does it). People don't change their own hearts. God points out the need for their hearts to be changed, but at the same time they won't respond unless their hearts are changed. And, God doesn't do that for everyone obviously.

Is that wrong? This assumes entitlement, that everyone is entitled to salvation. I don't believe that. It is counter-grace. Grace requires that salvation is an act of God's undeserving kindness toward the person. If he doesn't choose to save some, that's his prerogative, or it's not grace. God doesn't owe rebel sinners anything except eternal punishment.

Am I claiming God is a respecter of persons? No, he saves people of all different types. In fact, he saves some of the worst people to make his glory known in a clearer way. Read 1 Corinthians 1. No one can boast of anything except the LORD.

Six, regarding Romans 6, the audience is BELIEVERS, not unbelievers. We are talking about regenerated individuals who have a heart to respond. They have been united with Christ, and share in his energies. Because of their union with Christ, they are able to bear fruit. Paul was reminding them of the reality (the fact that they have been joined with Christ) and the imperatives which flow from this (obedience and good fruit).

The basic teaching involves identity and economy. The believer's identity is that he is joined with Christ, and because of this, he shares in Christ's legal status. As well, he is joined to Christ in a spiritual sense. Paul tells the believer that he is to produce fruit, because of this new status. In fact, he cannot fail to produce fruit, long term, due to this union. He is joined to Jesus, just like a branch is joined to the vine, and the life-giving nutrients flow from the vine to the branch.

It is true that the believer can frustrate such growth, and that is why Paul is pointing out their obligation to produce it. However, it isn't even really them producing it; it is their vital connection to Jesus that is producing it. At the same time, they were to be diligent and fearful about failing to produce it, as other passages warn. No one wants to stand before Jesus in a shameful condition at the judgment.

Anyways it seems like you'd do better reading the Bible looking at it in a biblical theology sort of way, instead of proof-texting and attempting to come up with a philosophical system and impose it upon the text. I am into biblical theology, and it just so happens that Reformed theology reflects the facts garnered in reading Scripture using biblical theology.

Additionally, there's a reason why some of the greatest biblical theologians and systematic theologians are Reformed. It's because they are organized and systematic. I have yet to read other systematic theologians that make much sense. I focused mostly on synergistic teachers up until the last six years or so, and then became more acquainted with Reformed authors. I find the difference like night and day. Reformed people are more coherent and more systematic than synergists, and reflect Scripture better.

You should also acknowledge that libertarian free will is a PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEM and not a biblical system. It relies heavily on presuppositions imported from philosophy. Reformed theology relies on exegesis and not a philosophical system. In fact, most Reformed people are offended by Reformed theology, especially initially.

I applaud most of what you have said, but in Deut 30, I believe Israel was God's elect, but were blinded to see the whole truth.

UnitedWithChrist · Sep 30, 2019

One of the fundamental questions Pelagians and other synergists would ask is this: why would God ask something that those individuals could not do?

In the synergist mindset, the answer is, they can do it, and that is why God asks it. The monergist says, no they can't, they are totally helpless, and cannot do anything...therefore they need to rely on God to give them a heart that can do his will.

I will admit, though, that the Arminian knows this..he knows that something needs to happen to change the situation..that is why he came up with his Scotch-tape theology called prevenient grace. It's like a temporary regeneration that allows the man to respond..only problem is there's no biblical basis for it

Prevenient grace is like a temporary regeneration that puts the man in a state where he can respond to God, but the decision is totally his.

Regeneration changes the nature so that the man freely chooses God, because his fallen nature has been changed. The bogus puppet analogy that the OP gave in regards to this is just a caricature of Reformed theology. Pelagians and other free-willers don't seem to recognize that the nature is changed first, and then the choices flow from the changed nature. The saved man freely follows God, because it is consistent with his new nature.

There is a basis for regeneration preceding faith...several places in the Old Testament emphasize that fallen man needs a heart transplant to follow God.

I can have some level of sympathy for the Arminian, though, because at least he recognizes the depths of man's helplessness and depravity....many other synergists don't even acknowledge that much.

I didn't learn much from the Arminian churches I went to..whether they were Southern Baptist, Christian and Missionary Alliance, or whatever. It seemed like they were comparatively clueless about salvation concepts. Sadly, that's the legacy of our country following the "New School" nonsense popularized by Charles Finney and his ilk.

UnitedWithChrist · Sep 30, 2019

ForestGreenCook said:

Eph 2 indicates it's the general state of mankind including Gentiles...additionally, the issue is that they did not have a changed heart.

Thanks for affirming most of what I said..I am convicted of all of what I said though, or I wouldn't waste my energy writing it

Peace.

ForestGreenCook · Sep 30, 2019

UnitedWithChrist said:

I agree with you, even though we have been born with a new heart, that heart, sometimes, needs refreshed or changed from the way we are headed. God be with you.

UnitedWithChrist · Sep 30, 2019

ForestGreenCook said:

I agree with that too, bud.

By the way, to add to my analysis on the topic, I would read 2 Cor 3.

2 Cor 3 says that the hearts of the believers were hearts of flesh. There is a comparison between the stony tablets of the Ten Commandments, and the heart of flesh of the believer.

Some will claim that the material for the Ten Commandments in the ark of the covenant was stone due to the permanency of the Mosaic Law. That would not be my view. My view would be that Israel's hearts were hard, and the stony tablets reflected this hard heart.

I am not addressing the hearts of King David, the prophets, and the remnant, though. I realize that there was a regenerate group within Israel. However, the average Israelite had a hard heart, and the stone of the tablets suggests this hard heart. I think 2 Cor 3 is beautiful in this regard.

ForestGreenCook · Sep 30, 2019

UnitedWithChrist said:

The scriptures say that all Israel is not of Israel. Some of the nation of Israel are not of the elect, only those who are Jacob Israel. God changed Jacob's name to be called Israel, Gen 33:32. Many of the scriptures, thereafter, that are referring to Israel, are referring to Jacob, whose name is Israel.

Whispered · Sep 30, 2019

ForestGreenCook said:

Again, you say you believe all scripture must harmonize in order to gain the proper understanding of a topic and then you excerpt verse 2 of David's song of the Book of Psalms 53.
If people are what a Calvinist believes as you argue as one here, that the T in Calvin's TULIP formula, "Total Depravity", were true then the full import of Total as regards the accusation of the human family being Depraved would preclude the totally depraved from possessing the capacity to repent.

See how TULIP fails? Especially when conflating the TULIP formula with the idea that God died only to save those whom He predetermined would respond to His leading unto repentance and salvation.
When someone is totally depraved they would be unable to acknowledge the leading of God because they are totally unprincipled.
And if the Calvinist argument then responds with, but God can bypass that barrier of total depravity when calling to himself those whom he chose to redeem himself, then we're back to square one wherein the Calvinist doctrine presupposes that God is an unprincipled ogre that creates before the world people he would choose to save after he created people he knew would fall into sin in the garden so as to need saving.

And conversely, He created people whom he knew would die in their sins and enter Hell.

That's Calvin's doctrine. God, the Sadist.

While his TULIP principle contradicts itself in the latter four points due to the declaration in the first, Total Depravity.
Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)

T= Man's heart is evil.
U=God chooses certain evil hearted people to be saved due to his reasons, not anything the depraved immoral evil hearted chosen one's do so as to claim they warranted being chosen.
L=Jesus died to install the concept of Limited Atonement into the world. While the scriptures claim Jesus died so that whosoever believes in Him will not perish, in truth his death was not efficacious, effective, so as to save whosoever believed in him. Instead, His death was actually to redeem only those totally depraved people God chose to save because they are incapable by that fallen nature to choose Him themselves. Which means all those scriptures about Jesus dying for all who would come unto repentance is a lie. (per Calvin)

Irresistible Grace = Is whenGod calls those totally immoral depraved persons incapable of hearkening unto the goodness in God's word of themselves, their own effort, due to their being totally depraved, they cannot resist.
However, prior to that having an affect on that totally depraved immoral chosen one, they were incapable of finding God on their own, now though we're told they will be unable to resist God calling them to Himself because their Total Depravity isn't real. Else they'd be totally unable to respond to righteousness becasue they are first and foremost born entirely immoral, therein they would not recognize a moral leading. Unless, God's plan created all people to be Totally Depraved due to the sin in the garden and then decided who's TD shields would be able to be penetrated by His decision to save them after His will caused them to be born totally depraved having also the foreknowledge that one born that way is that one he would later save from himself and the damned judgment afforded by Himself.
Irresistible Grace claims God offers to all people the gospel message. And yet the concept of Irresistable Grace insures His sacrifice and message was began because He only intended to have the Good News deliver itself unto those He created totally depraved so that He could rescue them from that station he implanted into them in the beginning before humans were created.
It also means God foreknew whom He would damn among those that remain Totally Depraved. It also means that when He taught that He came to save the world and all who believe that he actually meant He came to save only those whom He predetermined He would save of His own merit not theirs.
Saved against your will. By the God that made you totallPy depraved so as to have no will capable of accepting the moral message in the gospel itself.

P= Perseverance of the Saints , no kidding! Those God elects to save from the T formula he foreordained can never lose what they never had anything to do with in achieving it for themselves in the first place. They are forever saved because God Elected to save them before he created the whole world and humans. Which necessarily points to the converse. That God created the world to be full of depraved people damned for their condition and yet predestined from among that worldly number those one's HE would save himself through his own efforts alone.

Which would mean Jesus didn't have to die at all. Because no human needed to have faith in His sacrifice for the world's sins when He had already predetermined who among the worlds population that in total are depraved would be saved by His choice before the world began.

In short, Jesus didn't have to die to save anybody when God, who later was Jesus, had already determined whom He would save before the first human was created, because there is no thing that Elect one does to save themselves per the TULIP formula. It is all God. Therefore God didn't have to die in order to give anyone opportunity to have faith in the cause of His sacrifice when only those He predetermined would be saved from that born state of Totally Depraved would be chosen by Him to be saved from Him as the judge who would later cast others not chosen into Hell.

Whispered · Sep 30, 2019

ForestGreenCook said:

That's odd considering you argue from the Calvinist perspective. A doctrine which precludes not only free will in people but also insists that while God predestined humans to be totally depraved, He also predestined whom He would save by his will, not any choice those who could not make a righteous choice due to their precondition of total depravity that would preclude their capacity to acknowledge their fallen state and seek repentance. Because total depravity means they are incapable.

Calvin's formula reminds me of a line from the Keanu Reeves movie, Constantine.
"I guess God has a plan for all of us."
"God's a kid with an ant farm lady, he's not planning anything."

Link to the above first entry of the TULIP formula. I should have added this then. https://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm

Roughsoul1991 · Sep 30, 2019

Melach said:

Yes it's sad. They believe in reincarnation and the afflicted or poor in this life deserve it from living badly in the last life. The religion of Hinduism must be a very complicated one having so many Gods that they dont even know them all. A works based religion with every part of your life centered around trying to be their definition of good.

Reminds me of Paul in

Acts 17:16-23 New International Version (NIV)
In Athens
16 While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols.17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. 18 A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. 19 Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20 You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we would like to know what they mean.” 21 (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)

22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagusand said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.

The unknown god. You know in case they missed one of them. Paul's preaching style is always never boring to try and learn from lol.

Melach · Sep 30, 2019

st.paul is one of the best men to imitiate when it comes to preaching. because he preached to gentiles specifically. st.paul had great knowledge of the religions and philosophy around him and knew best way to reach all.

Roughsoul1991 · Sep 30, 2019

ForestGreenCook said:

Concerning your question about 1 Tim 2:3-4, How does this verse fit the sovereignty argument? This verse says that God wants all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. Salvation, according to Greek is "a deliverance". There is a deliverance that the born again child of God can receive by obtaining the full knowledge of the gospel that explains the finished work of Christ. The "all men" in this verse, in order to harmonize with other scriptures, means "all elect men". Another scripture dealing with this same deliverance is Romans 10:1-2-3, Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel (God changed Jacob's name, who is representative of God's elect, to be called Israel, Gen 33:32) is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they HAVE A ZEAL OF GOD, (evidence of being born again of the Holy Spirit) but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness (by the works of the law) and have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness (the knowledge of Christ's finished work on the cross) of God. This same situation fits many of the people on this forum who think they have something to do to get eternal life.

Nothing in that verse says all elect men. Your reading that into the verse in order for it to fit the few verses that speak on elect.

Do you not see that?

Roughsoul1991 · Sep 30, 2019

UnitedWithChrist said:

It is so contradicting. You may call it a straw man but I'm pointing out the contradiction. I'll do it again.

Your stopping short of what it teaches. I agree with this statement but this isnt where compatabilism stops. If you came out of a cult then why should I trust that your understanding is in line with mainstream Christian beliefs?

You may not openly say that but if you follow your beliefs all the way through then yes you get God as the author of sin.

Foreknowledge yes. He saw the only world that could allow genuine love was a world of free will. Even the angels had free will as to why the rebellion occurred. But God saw this was the only way to not have human robots or human slaves. Because to a loving God that is against his nature. He saw but yet allowed it to occur but in his foreknowledge he also predestined a Savior.

Just explained God saw. And free will was the only reason sin and evil occurred.

Let me ask a question. Is God all just?

I will assume your answer as yes. If yes then how many of the aborted babies are in Hell right now? None of them heard of Jesus.

Romans 2:12-16
12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

For those who have not heard the written law aka the word of of God written down at that time on scrolls, letters or by mouth repeated. Then they are a law unto themselves. God will judge them justly by the peoples conscience secrets that accused them or defend them from their response to God's natural revelation through the moral law.

Now is that salvation? Idk but I do know God will judge them justly just as he did those who died before the Noahide laws or the Mosaic laws.

1 Timothy 2:3-4
3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

How does your comment counter that God wishes all people to be saved? As to the need to pray for them. This was in response to the contradicting statement made in the link you posted.

The Absence of Free Will

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member