Does man have a libertarian free will?

[TheDivineWatermark]

no its really embarrasing. maybe mods will delete me save my face lolz. always double check before posting is what i learned. but i just have so many questions. if the drawing isnt all in john 12:31, why does it say all, world, etc? why cant bible use more precise language.
and what about all the exhortations and commands to repent, why do it if God knows they cant unless He does something for them? seems very complicated. maybe i can make a different topic about it, or someone can pm me. (i cant pm too new member)

John 12:32, right??

[this post is in response to all those in this thread who have covered the word "CALLED"... not just Melach… I'm copying a few posts I've made in the past, to put in this post, in response to that Subject]

Re: "CALLED"... and the TWO distinct Greek words translated "CALL/CALLED" (or "INVITE/INVITED"):

--G2564 - kaleó / kalesai / keklēmenous - "to call / invite / name"

--G2822 - klétos / klētoi / klētois - "to call / invite / summon"

It is important to notice how EACH of these is used in BOTH [/EACH] the Matthew 22:1-14 passage AND the Romans 8:28,30 verses (both words are in both passages):


G2564 - kaleó / kalesai / keklēmenous - "to call / invite / name" -

Matthew 22:3 V-ANA
GRK: δούλους αὐτοῦ καλέσαι τοὺς κεκλημένους
NAS: out his slaves to call those
KJV: servants to call them that were bidden
INT: servants of him to call those having been invited

Matthew 22:3 V-RPM/P-AMP
GRK: καλέσαι τοὺς κεκλημένους εἰς τοὺς
NAS: those who had been invited to the wedding feast,
KJV: to call them that were bidden to
INT: to call those having been invited to the

Matthew 22:4 V-RPM/P-DMP
GRK: Εἴπατε τοῖς κεκλημένοις Ἰδοὺ τὸ
NAS: those who have been invited, Behold,
KJV: Tell them which are bidden, Behold,
INT: Say to those having been invited Behold the

Matthew 22:8 V-RPM/P-NMP
GRK: οἱ δὲ κεκλημένοι οὐκ ἦσαν
NAS: but those who were invited were not worthy.
KJV: but they which were bidden were
INT: those moreover having been invited not were

[NOTE: these ^ had rejected the invitation/call, per vv.3,5,6]

Matthew 22:9 V-AMA-2P
GRK: ἐὰν εὕρητε καλέσατε εἰς τοὺς
NAS: as you find [there], invite to the wedding feast.'
KJV: ye shall find, bid to
INT: if you shall find invite to the

Romans 8:30 V-AIA-3S
GRK: τούτους καὶ ἐκάλεσεν καὶ οὓς
NAS: He also called; and these
KJV: he also called: and whom
INT: these also he called and whom


G2822 - klétos / klētoi / klētois - "to call / invite / summon" -

Matthew 22:14 Adj-NMP
GRK: γάρ εἰσιν κλητοὶ ὀλίγοι δὲ
NAS: For many are called, but few
KJV: many are called, but few
INT: indeed are called few however

Romans 8:28 Adj-DMP
GRK: κατὰ πρόθεσιν κλητοῖς οὖσιν
NAS: to those who are called according
KJV: to them who are the called according
INT: according to [his] purpose called are


[note: the Matthew 22:1-7,8-14 passage is referring to the "guests [plural]" of "the wedding FEAST/SUPPER" i.e. the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom which will be commencing upon His "RETURN" to the earth, whereas the Romans 8 passage is referring to (that which pertains to) "the Church which is His body" (who is not "the guests [plural]"), so there's that distinction to be noted also--not that this makes much difference in how these two words are used (re: call/invite)]


[quoting from BibleHub]

"In the NT, 2822 /klētós ("divinely called") focuses on God's general call – i.e. the call (invitation) He gives to all people, so all can receive His salvation. God desires every person to call out to Him and receive His salvation (1 Tim 2:4,5). "Unfortunately, many choose not to – but all can; all don't but all can call out to God for His mercy (not just 'some')" (G. Archer)." [source: BibleHub]

[and]

EDIT (not enough time to add this bracketed comment back into that post ):

Also, Acts 28:24 [blb] - "And indeed, some were persuaded [G3982 - epeithonto ] of the things he is speaking, but some refused to believe [G569]."
[same word as in Acts 17:34, quoted and included in the underlined in my post above (TDW: not shown in this post)]

G569 ēpistoun ['refused to believe' or 'disbelieved'] (from Acts 28:24, also quoted in my post above) -


[quoting from BibleHub]

Cognate: 569 apistéō (from 571 /ápistos, "unfaithful," without faith, i.e. negating 4103 /pistós, "faithful") – properly, refusing to be persuaded by God ("betray His trust," J. Thayer).

569 /apistéō ("not willing to be persuaded") means more than "disbelieve" ("not believing") because it indicates "refusing to be faithful" (honor a trust or revelation from the Lord). See 571 (apistos).

569/apisteō ("refuse to be persuaded") is sin committed by believers (Mk 16:11; Lk 24:11,41) and unbelievers (Ac 28:24; Ro 3:3; 1 Pet 2:7). 569 (apistéō) reveals a person is unconvinced when they should be persuaded by what the Lord has done (offered).

[end quoting BibleHub]

[end quoting those posts]

____________

Recall also the verse that says, "So faith is from [ek / ex] hearing, and hearing through [/by means of] the word of Christ." Rom10:17 [some versions say, "by [means of] the word of God"]

 

[7seasrekeyed]

ain't nobody gonna read all that

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

ain't nobody gonna read all that

… and I even brought it down BELOW a third grade level.


I ENLARGED the one sentence about 1/3 of the way down the post, in hopes that THAT ALONE might grab the eye of the interested student of the Word, and that this might spur them on to investigate that one thought/point on their own... again, if interested

 

[7seasrekeyed]

… and I even brought it down BELOW a third grade level.


I ENLARGED the one sentence about 1/3 of the way down the post, in hopes that THAT ALONE might grab the eye of the interested student of the Word, and that this might spur them on to investigate that one thought/point on their own... again, if interested

people assume way too much on this forum at times

do you assume that people don't study the Bible if they do not read your post with all the directions?

that's a problem right there

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

people assume way too much on this forum at times

do you assume that people don't study the Bible if they do not read your post with all the directions?

that's a problem right there

I'm not "getting"/sensing that you understand the point of my post. It centered around two of the Greek words for "call/called/invite/invited"... how each of the two are used in both the Matt22 passage and the Rom8 passage.

I've never seen a Calvinist respond to what I've presented. Their viewpoint contradicts it, and so I've only seen avoidance to this particular issue [whenever I've brought it up, or posted on it].

I apologize if this annoys you.

Have a great day!

 

[7seasrekeyed]

I'm not "getting"/sensing that you understand the point of my post. It centered around two of the Greek words for "call/called/invite/invited"... how each of the two are used in both the Matt22 passage and the Rom8 passage.

I've never seen a Calvinist respond to what I've presented. Their viewpoint contradicts it, and so I've only seen avoidance to this particular issue [whenever I've brought it up, or posted on it].

I apologize if this annoys you.

Have a great day!

I'm not a Calvinist

I am entirely opposed to it and have written quite a number of posts that will indicate that

they will not respond if they cannot engage you in a personal manner that ends badly and they certainly will not engage in any post that contains scripture that refutes TULIP

perhaps you did not understand what I wrote

you have a good day too

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

I'm not a Calvinist

I've not (and have not ever) said nor even suggested that you are.

My post is not aimed at you, then.

So I am not sure why you have taken it up, as a matter of your several posts, here just now.
But you are free to do so, as far as I'm concerned.

I am entirely opposed to it and have written quite a number of posts that will indicate that

I do recall this.

I'm not sure why this matters, however (in view of my post and your attention to it, by your "responding").

they will not respond if they cannot engage you in a personal manner that ends badly and they certainly will not engage in any post that contains scripture that refutes TULIP

I have no personal interest in dragging any unwilling folks into convos they have no interest in engaging with.

I do hope some readers (any readers!) may take an interest in looking into what the texts (of Scripture) say, and this was the purpose of my posting it.

perhaps you did not understand what I wrote

I think I do, somewhat.

You stated it clearly enough.

you have a good day too

Thanks!

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

How does he produce faith and repentance from his heart of stone?
You do know the Scriptures which state that God must take out the heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh, don't you?

Where I see the phrase "heart of stone" [or similar] is in the passages regarding ISRAEL (and not as newborn infants):

--Ezekiel 11:19 (vv.4-21 for context)

--Ezekiel 36:26 (vv.21-38 for context)

--Zechariah 7:12 (vv.8-14 for context; see also chpt 8 for fuller context)

These speak specifically of ISRAEL. You are applying these passages more broadly than their contexts allow.


...even Pharaoh was a grown man when he "hardened his heart" (it would seem odd for one to "harden" an already-stone-from-birth[-or-conception-even] heart, wouldn't it?)-- 1 Samuel 6:6 , Exodus 8:32; and Romans 1 says [of some] "they BECAME futile in their thinking and their foolish heart was darkened"--the whole flow of the context shows a downward spiral rather than indicating that "a reprobate heart" is a "starting-point," so to speak--It was some time back that I posted Wm Kelly's Commentary on one particular section of Romans 1 and what that speaks to specifically... I'll try to hunt for that and post it (probably much later tonight, or possibly even tomorrow... we'll see )

Like I have said over and over again, the free willer theology that an unsaved man, with a heart of stone, needs to somehow squeeze faith and repentance from it, so he can receive a heart of flesh as a result, is absurd.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Where I see the phrase "heart of stone" [or similar] is in the passages regarding ISRAEL (and not as newborn infants):

--Ezekiel 11:19 (vv.4-21 for context)

--Ezekiel 36:26 (vv.21-38 for context)

--Zechariah 7:12 (vv.8-14 for context; see also chpt 8 for fuller context)

These speak specifically of ISRAEL. You are applying these passages more broadly than their contexts allow.


...even Pharaoh was a grown man when he "hardened his heart" (it would seem odd for one to "harden" an already-stone-from-birth[-or-conception-even] heart, wouldn't it?)-- 1 Samuel 6:6 , Exodus 8:32; and Romans 1 says [of some] "they BECAME futile in their thinking and their foolish heart was darkened"--the whole flow of the context shows a downward spiral rather than indicating that "a reprobate heart" is a "starting-point," so to speak--It was some time back that I posted Wm Kelly's Commentary on one particular section of Romans 1 and what that speaks to specifically... I'll try to hunt for that and post it (probably much later tonight, or possibly even tomorrow... we'll see )

This is is ludicrous, and typical of dispensationalist nonsense.

Are you really claiming that non-Israelites don't have a hardened heart prior to being regenerated?

Do you even know what regeneration means? It means to be given new life. Do you believe Gentiles who are not regenerated are in a better situation than Israelites who are not regenerated?

LOL

That's why I usually don't bother reading your posts.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Where I see the phrase "heart of stone" [or similar] is in the passages regarding ISRAEL (and not as newborn infants):

--Ezekiel 11:19 (vv.4-21 for context)

--Ezekiel 36:26 (vv.21-38 for context)

--Zechariah 7:12 (vv.8-14 for context; see also chpt 8 for fuller context)

These speak specifically of ISRAEL. You are applying these passages more broadly than their contexts allow.


...even Pharaoh was a grown man when he "hardened his heart" (it would seem odd for one to "harden" an already-stone-from-birth[-or-conception-even] heart, wouldn't it?)-- 1 Samuel 6:6 , Exodus 8:32; and Romans 1 says [of some] "they BECAME futile in their thinking and their foolish heart was darkened"--the whole flow of the context shows a downward spiral rather than indicating that "a reprobate heart" is a "starting-point," so to speak--It was some time back that I posted Wm Kelly's Commentary on one particular section of Romans 1 and what that speaks to specifically... I'll try to hunt for that and post it (probably much later tonight, or possibly even tomorrow... we'll see )

Romans 3:9-18 9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 in their paths are ruin and misery,
17 and the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

How in the world do you maintain that Gentiles don't have a hard heart, yet Jews do?

LOL

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ EDIT to add to my last post... FOUND the part of his Commentary I was referring to (faster than I thought I would! lol):

[quoting Wm Kelly, Commentary on Romans 1 (1-3); source: BibleHub]

"Again, this verse [Rom1:18] is not, as some suppose, limited as a preface to the proof of Gentile depravity; it is rather the thesis in brief, which is opened out in the rest of Romans 1, 2, 3, down to verse 21, which resumes the treatment of God's righteousness, and begins the details of that which we had in Romans 1:17. I understand, therefore, that verse 18 gives first the general description of human ungodliness in every phase, and then the unrighteousness which was at that time most conspicuous in the Jews who combined with practical injustice a tenacious hold or possession of the truth: the former demonstrated to the end of Romans 1; the latter (after the transition of Romans 2:1-16.) pursued from Romans 2:17 to Romans 3:20. Had this two-fold aspect been apprehended in the verse before us, the rendering of the Authorized Version would not have been deserted for "restraining the truth by unrighteousness," which is a sense framed to meet the condition of the heathen who were supposed here to be alone in the apostle's view. The same misconception wrought mischief in lowering the character both of the revelation of God's wrath from heaven, and of the truth in order to meet paganism. Admit the universal scope of the moral description with a specific reference to those who held the truth in unrighteousness, and the sense which results is as easy as it is all-important, the fitting introduction to the entire episode that follows till the apostle takes up his proper theme, God's righteousness revealed in the gospel.


[TDW: so here ^ he's saying that the sections are...
--"general/mankind, in chpt 1 [except where v.18 covers two aspects ('general mankind' and then 'the Jews,' each in that verse)]";
--"transition section from 2:1-16";
--"Jews, in 2:17-3:20 [again, with 1:18b speaking of this also]"]


[continuing on with quoting Wm Kelly...]

"The apostle next proceeds to set forth the proofs of the guilt of men, because of which the wrath of God awaits them. And first he takes up impiety, or the evil which characterized the vast majority of the world, as later on he addresses himself to that subtler iniquity which consisted in holding the truth along with practical unrighteousness, then found among Jews as now in Christendom. This division of the subject, it will be seen, is not only closer to the language of the context but it preserves us from the mistake of such as attribute a knowledge of "the truth" to the heathen as such. In fact verse 19 begins with the earlier of the two classes of evil we have seen distinguished in verse 18, and the subject is pursued to the end of the chapter. It is distinctively the Gentile portion, and presents the moral ground which necessitated and justified the unsparing judgment of God.

"Two reasons are assigned why His wrath is thus revealed upon all impiety. The first (ver. 19, 20.) is their inexcusable neglect of the testimony of creation to His eternal power and divinity; the second (ver. 21.), their abandonment of the traditional knowledge of God they had as late as the day of (not Adam, but even) Noah. Thus man was unfaithful to knowledge he possessed and to evidence around him.

" "Because what is to be known of God is manifest among them, for God hath manifested it to them. For the invisible things of him from the world's creation are perceived, being understood by his work, both his eternal power and divinity, so that they should be inexcusable." The general force is plain. [...]"

--William Kelly, Commentary on Romans 1 (1-3), source: BibleHub

[end quoting]

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

^ EDIT to add to my last post... FOUND the part of his Commentary I was referring to (faster than I thought I would! lol):

[quoting Wm Kelly, Commentary on Romans 1 (1-3); source: BibleHub]

"Again, this verse [Rom1:18] is not, as some suppose, limited as a preface to the proof of Gentile depravity; it is rather the thesis in brief, which is opened out in the rest of Romans 1, 2, 3, down to verse 21, which resumes the treatment of God's righteousness, and begins the details of that which we had in Romans 1:17. I understand, therefore, that verse 18 gives first the general description of human ungodliness in every phase, and then the unrighteousness which was at that time most conspicuous in the Jews who combined with practical injustice a tenacious hold or possession of the truth: the former demonstrated to the end of Romans 1; the latter (after the transition of Romans 2:1-16.) pursued from Romans 2:17 to Romans 3:20. Had this two-fold aspect been apprehended in the verse before us, the rendering of the Authorized Version would not have been deserted for "restraining the truth by unrighteousness," which is a sense framed to meet the condition of the heathen who were supposed here to be alone in the apostle's view. The same misconception wrought mischief in lowering the character both of the revelation of God's wrath from heaven, and of the truth in order to meet paganism. Admit the universal scope of the moral description with a specific reference to those who held the truth in unrighteousness, and the sense which results is as easy as it is all-important, the fitting introduction to the entire episode that follows till the apostle takes up his proper theme, God's righteousness revealed in the gospel.


[TDW: so here ^ he's saying that the sections are...
--"general/mankind, in chpt 1 [except where v.18 covers two aspects ('general mankind' and then 'the Jews,' each in that verse)]";
--"transition section from 2:1-16";
--"Jews, in 2:17-3:20 [again, with 1:18b speaking of this also]"]


[continuing on with quoting Wm Kelly...]

"The apostle next proceeds to set forth the proofs of the guilt of men, because of which the wrath of God awaits them. And first he takes up impiety, or the evil which characterized the vast majority of the world, as later on he addresses himself to that subtler iniquity which consisted in holding the truth along with practical unrighteousness, then found among Jews as now in Christendom. This division of the subject, it will be seen, is not only closer to the language of the context but it preserves us from the mistake of such as attribute a knowledge of "the truth" to the heathen as such. In fact verse 19 begins with the earlier of the two classes of evil we have seen distinguished in verse 18, and the subject is pursued to the end of the chapter. It is distinctively the Gentile portion, and presents the moral ground which necessitated and justified the unsparing judgment of God.

"Two reasons are assigned why His wrath is thus revealed upon all impiety. The first (ver. 19, 20.) is their inexcusable neglect of the testimony of creation to His eternal power and divinity; the second (ver. 21.), their abandonment of the traditional knowledge of God they had as late as the day of (not Adam, but even) Noah. Thus man was unfaithful to knowledge he possessed and to evidence around him.

" "Because what is to be known of God is manifest among them, for God hath manifested it to them. For the invisible things of him from the world's creation are perceived, being understood by his work, both his eternal power and divinity, so that they should be inexcusable." The general force is plain. [...]"

--William Kelly, Commentary on Romans 1 (1-3), source: BibleHub

[end quoting]

What good is it going to do to quote a dispensationalist Plymouth Brethren commentator to me? You might as well quote Dave Hunt

I could quote a dozen Reformed guys who would not agree with him.

Even my own experience doesn't agree with him.

You guys are so enslaved by your free-willer traditions that you won't be convinced by Scripture itself, either. You'll wrangle out of it by doing some incoherent word study or quoting one of the guys from your tradition, and simply deny it

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Do you believe Gentiles who are not regenerated are in a better situation than Israelites who are not regenerated?

Well, by the same token, do you believe that Romans 11:25's "blindness/hardening... UNTIL" speaks of all people in general, or do you think the CONTEXT here is speaking of "Israel" [in part] (because the actual text SAYS "that blindness/a hardening [G4457 - pōrōsis ] in part is happened TO ISRAEL, UNTIL...")

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

^ EDIT to add to my last post... FOUND the part of his Commentary I was referring to (faster than I thought I would! lol):

[quoting Wm Kelly, Commentary on Romans 1 (1-3); source: BibleHub]

"Again, this verse [Rom1:18] is not, as some suppose, limited as a preface to the proof of Gentile depravity; it is rather the thesis in brief, which is opened out in the rest of Romans 1, 2, 3, down to verse 21, which resumes the treatment of God's righteousness, and begins the details of that which we had in Romans 1:17. I understand, therefore, that verse 18 gives first the general description of human ungodliness in every phase, and then the unrighteousness which was at that time most conspicuous in the Jews who combined with practical injustice a tenacious hold or possession of the truth: the former demonstrated to the end of Romans 1; the latter (after the transition of Romans 2:1-16.) pursued from Romans 2:17 to Romans 3:20. Had this two-fold aspect been apprehended in the verse before us, the rendering of the Authorized Version would not have been deserted for "restraining the truth by unrighteousness," which is a sense framed to meet the condition of the heathen who were supposed here to be alone in the apostle's view. The same misconception wrought mischief in lowering the character both of the revelation of God's wrath from heaven, and of the truth in order to meet paganism. Admit the universal scope of the moral description with a specific reference to those who held the truth in unrighteousness, and the sense which results is as easy as it is all-important, the fitting introduction to the entire episode that follows till the apostle takes up his proper theme, God's righteousness revealed in the gospel.


[TDW: so here ^ he's saying that the sections are...
--"general/mankind, in chpt 1 [except where v.18 covers two aspects ('general mankind' and then 'the Jews,' each in that verse)]";
--"transition section from 2:1-16";
--"Jews, in 2:17-3:20 [again, with 1:18b speaking of this also]"]


[continuing on with quoting Wm Kelly...]

"The apostle next proceeds to set forth the proofs of the guilt of men, because of which the wrath of God awaits them. And first he takes up impiety, or the evil which characterized the vast majority of the world, as later on he addresses himself to that subtler iniquity which consisted in holding the truth along with practical unrighteousness, then found among Jews as now in Christendom. This division of the subject, it will be seen, is not only closer to the language of the context but it preserves us from the mistake of such as attribute a knowledge of "the truth" to the heathen as such. In fact verse 19 begins with the earlier of the two classes of evil we have seen distinguished in verse 18, and the subject is pursued to the end of the chapter. It is distinctively the Gentile portion, and presents the moral ground which necessitated and justified the unsparing judgment of God.

"Two reasons are assigned why His wrath is thus revealed upon all impiety. The first (ver. 19, 20.) is their inexcusable neglect of the testimony of creation to His eternal power and divinity; the second (ver. 21.), their abandonment of the traditional knowledge of God they had as late as the day of (not Adam, but even) Noah. Thus man was unfaithful to knowledge he possessed and to evidence around him.

" "Because what is to be known of God is manifest among them, for God hath manifested it to them. For the invisible things of him from the world's creation are perceived, being understood by his work, both his eternal power and divinity, so that they should be inexcusable." The general force is plain. [...]"

--William Kelly, Commentary on Romans 1 (1-3), source: BibleHub

[end quoting]

You know, it is really basic that if someone isn't joined to Christ, they cannot reason correctly and live in futility and darkness.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Well, by the same token, do you believe that Romans 11:25's "blindness/hardening... UNTIL" speaks of all people in general, or do you think the CONTEXT here is speaking of "Israel" [in part] (because the actual text SAYS "that blindness/a hardening [G4457 - pōrōsis ] in part is happened TO ISRAEL, UNTIL...")

No person is free from radical corruption from the Fall.

All dwell in death and are under sin.

"Under sin" means they are enslaved to sin. They can't get out of it until Jesus liberates them.

And they are deceived and unable to find their way out.

They aren't even trying to find their way out.

Do you know what it means to be under death and sin? Do you know that 1 Corinthians says that the person without the spirit of God cannot understand the things of God?

Do you know that you need to be born again, which is regenerated? (John 3).

Do you know why someone needs to be born again?

I am astounded that anyone would even challenge the fact that radical corruption has contaminated all mankind, and claim that it is only isolated to Jews.

It sounds Pelagian in fact.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Well, by the same token, do you believe that Romans 11:25's "blindness/hardening... UNTIL" speaks of all people in general, or do you think the CONTEXT here is speaking of "Israel" [in part] (because the actual text SAYS "that blindness/a hardening [G4457 - pōrōsis ] in part is happened TO ISRAEL, UNTIL...")

A special judicial hardening has been applied to Jews, and the majority, except a remnant, are unable to come to faith.

However, that does not deny the stony heart that all mankind has.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

You know, it is really basic that if someone isn't joined to Christ, they cannot reason correctly and live in futility and darkness.

Well, I don't want to re-type the "too-lengthy" post I made on a separate thread, but I WOULD write out all of it here, to address what you've responded with (at least, to partially address it):

Post #201 - https://christianchat.com/threads/does-man-have-a-libertarian-free-will.188229/post-4070977


How would you answer what I've put there (which is only a small portion of the whole point I'd like to make)… if you care to address it, that is.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

However, that does not deny the stony heart that all mankind has.

Like I said, I only see the phrase "stony heart" [and similar] in these contexts that are speaking of Israel (as full-grown adults, with some history behind them).

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

… and to all THAT, I would add (but won't ) that long post I made some time back (in one of your threads, I think) that started out with:

[quoting excerpt from that post]

John 12:32-33 [blb] -

32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all to Myself.” 33 Now He was saying this, signifying by what death He was about to die. [compare this with your John 6:44 verse]

John 6:41-58 [blb] - [dialogue with skeptical inquiring multitude (vv.24-29), that though they'd seen Him, still did not believe (v.36) ]

[…<snip>…]

[end quoting]

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

And I can't remember if you were a Member back when I posted the following (in some old thread around here ):

[quoting that post]

Luke 7:29-30 - "29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. 30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel [G1012 - boulēn] of God against [as to / unto] themselves, being not baptized [having not been baptized] of him."

--G1012 - boulēn - used also in Ephesians 1:11, the verse Calvinists use to say "no one can reject/resist" THIS, God's decreed [determined-plan] will [G1012]... yet Luke 7:30 clearly says the Pharisees and lawyers "rejected the boulēn G1012 of God..." (which, for that time then in existence, the decreed-will of God was: "the baptism of John" [see Acts 18:25,26-27 re: 'the way of God more perfectly']).

The point being, they did indeed "reject the boulēn G1012 of God". Something that Calvinists say is impossible.

From Bible Hub:

Definition: counsel, deliberate wisdom, decree.

HELPS Word-studies

1012 boulḗ – properly, a resolved plan, used particularly of the immutable aspect of God's plan – purposefully arranging all physical circumstances, which guarantees every scene of life works to His eternal purpose.

This level of God's plan (1012 /boulḗ) demonstrates He is the Lord of history, i.e. always in charge!
[1012 (boulḗ) is more than God's immutable plan of physical circumstances. It always also includes the Lord's purpose in them – and hence arranging all the physical scenes of history before creation (Ps 139:16; Jn 1:3).]

[and, quoting from BibleHub]

HELPS Word-studies

Cognate: 1014 boúlomai – to plan with full resolve (determination). See 1012 (boulē).
1014 /boúlomai ("resolutely plan") is a strong term that underlines the predetermined (and determined) intention driving the planning (wishing, resolving). In contrast, 2309 (thélō) focuses on the desire ("wishfulness") behind making an offer (cf. TDNT, 1, 629).

[While God's "thelō-offers" can be rejected (see 2309 /thélō), His 1014 /boúlomai ("planning") always works out His purpose, especially in conjunction with presetting the physical scenes of history.]

[end quotes from BibleHub]


They clearly "rejected the boulēn G1012 of God," according to that text.

One might think to answer, well they are just doing what comes naturally (to natural man), but that is to miss the point. The point is, Calvinists say that "no one can reject/resist-->His 'boule / boulen [G1012]' will (that is to say, His 'decreed' will)." But Luke 7:30 says these clearly did so.

And I agree with those saying that "Calvinism" and "Arminianism" are NOT the only options.

[end quoting that post]