Did Jesus Die on The Cross for The Just/Elect/Saved Whose Names Are Written in The Book of Life OR

[studier]

How prophetic of you <g>. If we could choose under our own steam (power), then why is it necessary for the Father to draw his elect to his Son?

It's necessary for the Father to give us the information to hear and to learn and to choose to accept.

You've presented John 6:44. Simply read 6:45 in the continuing context of what Jesus meant by "draw". He makes it quite clear, and there is a nice little nuance in the terminology He's referencing. Chase the quote back to Isaiah and read it.

We can choose, but we need to be given what to choose. The same goes for we can believe, but we need to be given what to believe.

 

[studier]

So let me ask you, you get up go out and start your car, but the battery is dead. What do you do?

Choose to and actually jump it, charge it, replace as necessary.

Or do I have no choice and can only stand there and wait for someone else to do it for me?

 

[studier]

But whose faith is it? From whence come Paul's faith? Could it possibly be the gift of faith that is freely gifted to God's elect and that comes through Christ?

Surely to the simplistic reformed mind it could be and in fact is. But even your question preloads the word faith with a lot of systematized doctrine, so it's really to asking about faith. It's asking much more.

The truth is that Faith is more complex a topic in itself. It is both subjective and objective. It is both belief and what is believed. It is a mental faculty endowed by our Creator that works in part of a mental process that Paul told us some things about in Phil that I went through with only the help of a few. There is unbiblical faith and biblical Faith. There is the way some read the authors of our Text when they speak about things like the gift of faith and there are others who better understand how those authors speak and what they mean. Like most things biblical, there are many things said about faith that need to be harmonized to come to a more complete understanding of the word and topic.

 

[studier]

Mr. Studier, since, due to the temporary shut down and the likely demise of innocent posts, I'm not able to pick up from our last contact.

You did ask me specifically, however, to clarify a statement I made about A&E regarding their spiritual status after the Fall. As I recall I returned a short reply, confirming what you suspected: God saved Eve and passed over Adam. If you're of the mind, you can read my main 15-pt argument in my 3044 and then I made an addendum later in 3567, which lists various in which Adam is a type of Satan. Also, as an aside, Eve is a type of the Bride of Christ and you can find that argument easily enough online if so disposed.

Thanks. I'll pass on going back to assumed lengthy analogies and opt instead to ask you to provide a brief explanation and the Scripture you base it on. In lieu of your willingness to do this, I'm OK to pass for now.

 

[studier]

I John

Most will not understand the [unique] terminology. It'll be interesting to see if any ask about it.

 

[Cameron143]

Cameron143 said:
How are you going to imitate God apart from God living in and through you? You can imitate God? How? Like the way you show disdain for people? Is that walking in the Spirit?

PaulThomson said:
How would you answer this? - How does a child imitate her parents without the parents living in and through the child. Do you really believe a child can imitate her parents?



You mocked the idea that someone could imitate God without God living through them. I asked you to answer the question, "How does a child imitate her parents without the parents living in and through the child?"

You gave no answer. You just allowed you guidance system to run automatically and uncritically and to say whatever it felt like saying, unconnected to the question asked.

A child does imitate the motions of the adult, but not the motivations of the adult. There is outward conformity, but not inward conformity. The heart is still wayward. The motivation is self centered, not other centered. If the heart is never dealt with, the best that can be expected is a form of conformity that lacks an inward reality.
When it comes to God, you end up with a mere practice of religious ritual...a form of godliness, but a denying of the power thereof. This is why many can be raised in religious homes who leave religion and God later on. They have not been converted, only take on an exterior shallow religious shell. They never knew God, or were known by Him. Unless God comes personally and directly to an individual and changes their wayward heart, they are none of His.

 

[notmyown]

Without faith in what? What does the context say? Heb. 11:1-10

God, and His promises.

 

[Rufus]

You are failing to understand what the following means.

Who, being in very nature God,​

did not consider equality with God ​

something to be used to his own advantage;​

rather, he made himself nothing​

by taking the very nature of a servant,​

being made in human likeness.​

And being found in appearance as a man,​

he humbled himself​

by becoming obedient to death—​

even death on a cross! ​

​

Philippians 2:6-8​

He was always being God in hypostatic union. (Soul and Deity)
But, to become as a man?
He needed to deny Himself of His right to function in His powers of Deity.

Who, eternally being in very nature God,​

did not consider equality with God ​

something to be used to his own advantage;​

rather, he made himself nothing​

by taking the very nature of a servant,​

being made in human likeness.​

Just because He was God incarnate?
That does not mean He functioned in the power of God when choosing to make himself be as a man.
For he chose for His soul to only experience what its like to be a man. His Deity went into neutral in
reference to influencing nor empowering His humanity. He did it, making Himself to function as a sinless man.


For he chose for His soul to only experience what its like to be a man.
A sinless man. He laid down his life as God, and maintained the status of being humanity in power.

Some fail to realize.. If He functioned as God in power while making Himself be as a man?
The following verse would not be true.

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize ​

with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted ​

in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin." Hebrews 4:15​

Why must those who believe he functioned as God be untrue?

When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” ​

For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone. ​

James 1:13​

Figure it out for yourself.
If God can not be tempted?
How was Jesus functioning while He was on earth?
As God? Impossible! God can not be tempted!
Or, as a man? Yes... But, without sinning.

But we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin." ​

grace and peace ..........

I know exactly what the kenosis of Christ means. And it's still a non sequitur to the topic.

https://www.gotquestions.org/kenosis.html

And the question of whether or not Christ could be tempted is another question involving the doctrine of the Impeccability
of Christ.

https://www.monergism.com/impeccability-christ

You can sort these out for yourself and actually learn something -- or not. I have no time for rabbit trails.

Not in that post. I've initiated the conversation about the meaning of "free" a few times but could not get too far with it. So, I'll see what you've got to say. I'll also look to see if you responded at all to what that post was about. I'll be flowing freely from paragraph to paragraph saying what comes to mind.




Well, I wouldn't ask, because I agree that the concept does have limitations. I also recall saying this to another poster who as I recall was saying there are no limitations to freedom.

I can see the set-up coming re: "nature."



As I said, the set-up.

We've already gone through this several times. Unregenerate man can in fact choose to accept God based upon the General Revelation that God reveals in him. This man under sin can not only choose to accept or reject this spiritual knowledge, but is held responsible for his choice.

Thus you are defining freedom in your own limited sense based upon your erroneous view of what God has left unregenerate man under in not only able to do but responsible to do. IOW, you are placing limitations on freedom that are not biblical. God has left unregenerate man with the freedom and ability to choose to accept or to reject Him based upon the spiritual information God has provided to him and made certain he knows.

Freedom from evil is another discussion.



Your premise as I see it is incorrect. You're inserting a definition of "free" that is not applicable to unregenerate man who is not free from evil but is free to choose to accept or reject God pursuant to the General Revelation God has made certain he has. So, now you're trying to prove an incorrect premise.

While we're here, since I'm totally opposed to the theory that men do not choose and are not free to choose within the limits of freedom God has created and implemented, I do not find your rhetorical questions of interest. I do think they are good questions for some others participating in this thread.



The context that many do not seem to pay attention to, especially the world that often quotes it as a famous saying by at best a wise man, is freedom from sin for His disciples who [choose to and do] remain in His Word.

To stay on track, this does not prove your erroneous premise that unregenerate man has no freedom to choose to accept or reject divine revelation God has made certain he knows.



Again, for [true] abiding disciples who [choose to and do] remain in His Word, they will be free from sin and and remain in His house forever as sons.

To stay on track, this does not prove your erroneous premise that unregenerate man has no freedom to choose to accept or reject divine revelation God has made certain he knows.



And you have posited this before and continue to neglect the fact that there were people in slavery in Egypt that had chosen to believe in God and to maintain that belief in God and to do what they believed God who had been absent for generations would have them do. At some point(s) they even called out and He heard them.

This theory that unregenerate man cannot choose to believe in God who has made certain that all men know certain spiritual information about Him and are free and responsible to accept Him and be thankful to Him is completely empty and opposed to the Biblical Text. You are taking a theory back into Scripture and negating facts vividly and clearly presented.



In conclusion, the erroneous premise is carried though to reach a conclusion that is not applicable to the real argument.

While spiritually dead unregenerate man under sin is not free from sin, such man is still free in the sense of having not only the ability but the resultant responsibility unto God to choose to accept the revelation of God that God in all His undefeatable glory has made certain that such man knows. Man is not only free to accept this divine revelation about God, but conversely free to reject it and thereby choosing to reject God. Since man is free to choose to accept or to reject God, man will bear the responsibility of the choice he has freely made and he will have no excuse for choosing wrongly.

If we want to define freedom, then we must define it within the discussion we are actually having.

Good job in contradicting yourself and scripture. Bad Trees can still choose to do Good? Men with evil hearts CAN choose to speak good of God, in spite of what Christ taught? That is your definition of free? God-hating Man who is free from holiness, righteousness and goodness, is yet at the same time free to make good, righteous, holy choices? Really? And in your universe, this is perfectly logical? Man is free to make these kind of choices even though he is in bondage to sin and to his spiritual father the devil -- and to the world for that matter!? Mankind is totally immersed in Darkness (Death) from within and from out, but yet he can free himself from this bondage just making good choices? In your world unregenerate man is a free slave! I had nor idea you were such a fan of oxymorons. No wonder you were so dismissive of my Exodus argument which is a type of spiritual redemption!

And you keep ducking the real issue which is: Is God a free moral agent, since He cannot sin? And I say, YES! And so will all the saints in their glorified states in the next age be free moral agents -- totally free as their Creator is! There will be no slavery in the eternal order.

And you keep appealing to Natural Revelation as your go-to defense not understanding what Paul wrote! Evil men suppress the truth in unrighteousness because they do not want to retain God in their knowledge! A perfectly logical statement given the wicked disposition of men's hearts! Don't you know that men have this kind of wicked disposition of heart because apart from Christ they CAN DO NOTHING!?

And, yes, man is still morally responsible because all men have the knowledge of Good and Evil! And men drink evil like water!

 

[Cameron143]

Do you mean - No one walking in the Spirit insists on his own preferences, but is subjecting his choices to the choices of the Holy Spirit. Trusting God...walking by faith... is a choice... to lean not on your own understanding, but in all your ways to acknowledge Him...to accept the choices of the Holy Spirit as better than your own preferences when those two conflict ?

Have you never had your heart and mind stayed upon the Lord? Have you never cast all your cares upon God? And then actually let Him work them all out? Have you never known the intimacy of being bourne along by God moment by moment?
I fear I am describing things you have not experienced, an intimacy and spiritual reality you are unfamiliar with. It's an ongoing presence of God as real as the things you can see and touch.
It's not that I don't understand that you live constantly making decisions about what to do. I lived the majority of my Christian life that way, trying to do my best and trying to figure out what to do as life happens. But I'm suggesting to you that there is more to a relationship with God than what you have experienced. There is a life with God hidden in Christ that is a life in His presence.
Just on the off chance I'm right, ask God to see if it is so for you.

 

[Rufus]

Mr. Thompon sir, I seem to recall that you didn't like my post re Justice and how God was just in electing to save Eve and equally as just in electing Adam to reprobation. After the recent purge of many posts by the Mod, I was not able to find your post wherein you objected to my argument by moving the goal posts from election to man's personal responsibility as I recall. Of course, if you had availed yourself of that A.W. Pink article for which I recently provided a link, you would have found the answers to your concern. From what I can recall you objecton was along the lines of the third question Pink addressed which was:

III. How is it possible for God to DECREE that men SHOULD commit certain sins, hold them RESPONSIBLE in the committal of them, and adjudge them GUILTY because they committed them?

So...here's Pink's answer below, since that was one of the shorter sections in the article. And I will later add more meat to his argument in a separate post.

Let us now consider the extreme case of Judas. We hold that it is clear from Scripture, that God decreed from all eternity that Judas should betray the Lord Jesus. If anyone should challenge this statement we refer him to the prophecy of Zechariah, through whom God declared that His Son should be sold for "thirty pieces of silver" (Zech. 11:12). As we have said in earlier pages, in prophecy God makes known what will be, and in making known what will be, He is but revealing to us what He has ordained shall be. That Judas was the one through whom the prophecy of Zechariah was fulfilled, needs not to be argued.

But now the question we have to face is, Was Judas a responsible agent in fulfilling this decree of God? We reply that he was! Responsibility attaches mainly to the motive and intention of the one committing the act. This is recognized on every hand. Human law distinguishes between a blow inflicted by accident (without evil design), and a blow delivered with 'deliberate malice.' Apply then, this same principle to the case of Judas. What was the design of his heart when he bargained with the priests? Manifestly he had no conscious desire to fulfill any decree of God—though unknown to himself he was actually doing so. On the contrary, his intention was only evil, and therefore, though God had decreed and directed his act, nevertheless, his own evil intention rendered him justly guilty, as he afterwards acknowledged himself, "I have betrayed innocent blood."

It was the same with the Crucifixion of Christ. Scripture plainly declares that He was "delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23), and that though "the kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against His Christ;" yet, notwithstanding, it was but "to do whatever Your hand and Your plan had predestined to take place" (Acts 4:26, 28). These verses teach very much more than a bare permission by God, declaring, as they do, that the Crucifixion and all its details had been decreed by God. Yet, nevertheless, it was by "wicked hands," not merely "human hands", that our Lord was "crucified and slain" (Acts 2:23). "Wicked" because the intention, of His crucifiers was only evil.

But it might be objected that, if God had decreed that Judas should betray Christ, and that the Jews and Gentiles should crucify Him—that they could not do otherwise, and therefore, they were not responsible for their intentions. The answer is, God had decreed that they should perform the acts they did—but in the actual perpetration of these deeds they were justly guilty, because their own purposes in the doing of them was only evil.

Let it be emphatically said, that God does not produce the sinful dispositions of any of His creatures; though He does restrain and direct them to the accomplishing of His own purposes. Hence He is neither the Author nor the Approver of sin. Thus it is written, "A man's heart devises his way—but the Lord directs his steps" (Proverbs 16:9). What we would here insist upon is, that God's decrees are not the necessitating cause of the sins of men—but the fore-determined and prescribed boundings and directings of men's sinful acts.

In connection with the betrayal of Christ, God did not decree that He should be sold by one of His creatures—and then take up a holy man—instill an evil desire into his heart—and thus force him to perform the terrible deed in order to execute His decree. No! The Scriptures do not represent it thus. Instead, God decreed the act and selected the one who was to perform the act—but He did not make him evil in order that he should perform the deed. On the contrary, the betrayer was a "devil" at the time the Lord Jesus chose him as one of the twelve (John 6:70), and in the exercise and manifestation of his own devilry—God simply directed his actions, actions which were perfectly agreeable to his own vile heart, and performed with the most wicked intentions. Thus it was with the Crucifixion.

And if you feel up to the challenge, you should click on the link below and study question four which goes into more depth. It's similar question which reads:

IV. How can the sinner be held responsible to receive Christ, and be damned for rejecting Him, when God FOREORDAINED him TO condemnation?

https://www.monergism.com/gods-sovereignty-and-human-responsibility

 

[Cameron143]

Choose to and actually jump it, charge it, replace as necessary.

Or do I have no choice and can only stand there and wait for someone else to do it for me?

Yes, this is what you do. But we are taught to cast our cares upon Him. Your first step should have been to pray. It should have come naturally to you as you should have been carrying on a conversation with God when you found out the battery wasn't working. Had you, He would have taken care of the problem for you.
You decided you would solve your problem apart from God, and live independently of Him. How does this please God? Not only didn't you hear His voice, you weren't even listening. Not only didn't you see what God was doing, you weren't even looking for Him. In short, you are in charge of your life.
Someone being led by God would know that the dead battery wasn't happenstance. God can keep a battery working as long as He likes. And those being led of God also know that...this is the day the LORD has made. That is, each new day is a creation of God. Each day is unique and different from everyone that came before or will follow. And that particular day has God's designs for us personally. The dead battery was simply an opportunity for God to exercise His love and care for us. You never gave Him the opportunity to do so. You were so busy running your own life that you missed God.

 

[studier]

Good job in contradicting yourself and scripture. Bad Trees can still choose to do Good? Men with evil hearts CAN choose to speak good of God, in spite of what Christ taught? That is your definition of free? God-hating Man who is free from holiness, righteousness and goodness, is yet at the same time free to make good, righteous, holy choices? Really? And in your universe, this is perfectly logical? Man is free to make these kind of choices even though he is in bondage to sin and to his spiritual father the devil -- and to the world for that matter!? Mankind is totally immersed in Darkness (Death) from within and from out, but yet he can free himself from this bondage just making good choices? In your world unregenerate man is a free slave! I had nor idea you were such a fan of oxymorons. No wonder you were so dismissive of my Exodus argument which is a type of spiritual redemption!

I doubt you can prove with Scripture where such contradictions exist. I'm prepared to look at your evidence but won't agree to accepting your interpretations. Convince me. Merry-go-round once again?

Fallen man with information God has placed into and surrounding him, has the responsibility unto God to accept that information and thus accept God. Yes, he has the ability and the freedom to do so.

It's only when you insert all of your out of context assertions that the simple logic of that truth seems illogical.

I dismiss your Ex analogy because it's not biblically accurate and you stick to it even when you're repeatedly shown Scripture that shows some of those enslaved had chosen to retain their belief that God exists no matter the harshness of their slavery. Some of them even did good within this belief or Moses would not have lived.

And you keep ducking the real issue which is: Is God a free moral agent, since He cannot sin? And I say, YES! And so will all the saints in their glorified states in the next age be free moral agents -- totally free as their Creator is! There will be no slavery in the eternal order.

I dismiss the issue you have created that actually makes no sense to the argument. You can read my second paragraph above to see what the argument is.

And you keep appealing to Natural Revelation as your go-to defense not understanding what Paul wrote! Evil men suppress the truth in unrighteousness because they do not want to retain God in their knowledge! A perfectly logical statement given the wicked disposition of men's hearts! Don't you know that men have this kind of wicked disposition of heart because apart from Christ they CAN DO NOTHING!?

A pocket full of coins for the merry-go-round. All you have to do is make the choice and step off.

Your repetitive avoidance of truths that not all men reject God at General Revelation is quite a problem. Take off the dark glasses and see the portions of the Text you're missing.

And, yes, man is still morally responsible because all men have the knowledge of Good and Evil! And men drink evil like water!

Morally responsible and able and free to choose to accept and retain the divine revelation placed into them by God Himself. And then there's that protoevangel God spoke at the judgment in Eden. And then there's faith in the first progeny of Adam I. And then...

You know, at some point I think the Word is clear that some stiff-necked conditions remain and even worsen. There's also Heb6 that says spiritual advance is up to God. There's also 2Tim2 that speaks of God perhaps (I recall you like this word) granting repentance to those who are opposing His teaching.

Please read all of Scripture and let Him speak for Himself.

 

[HeIsHere]

This may sound controversial at first, but I would say that even those who have not accepted Christ and do not have Christ Jesus within them are acceptable - i.e. able to be accepted - and will be accepted, if they come to God with faith in God.

Yes agree, not controversial, it is biblical.

 

[HeIsHere]

but are yielding to the choices of the Spirit.

I am thinking one has to choose to yield.

But I do agree that the concept of "yielding" is central to walking in the Spirit.

 

[Rufus]

It's necessary for the Father to give us the information to hear and to learn and to choose to accept.

You've presented John 6:44. Simply read 6:45 in the continuing context of what Jesus meant by "draw". He makes it quite clear, and there is a nice little nuance in the terminology He's referencing. Chase the quote back to Isaiah and read it.

We can choose, but we need to be given what to choose. The same goes for we can believe, but we need to be given what to believe.

So, the drawing of God to you is simply divine revelation? There's no experiental drawing?

Your view above is lopsided because you emphasize the need for the Word of God to the exclusion of his Holy Spirit. Yet, scripture is quite clear: God's elect have been born of the Spirit AND the Word.

 

[Cameron143]

I am thinking one has to choose to yield.

But I do agree that the concept of "yielding" is central to walking in the Spirit.

Once you are yoked, you remain yielded. It isn't a continual choice of yielding. It's a resting in the original choice. You move as the One who you are yoked to moves. He carries or bears you along.
There exists a greater and more intimate relationship with God than many have come to know.

 

[HeIsHere]

So, the drawing of God to you is simply divine revelation? There's no experiental drawing?

Your view above is lopsided because you emphasize the need for the Word of God to the exclusion of his Holy Spirit. Yet, scripture is quite clear: God's elect have been born of the Spirit AND the Word.

Is Truth (word of God) not God (Spirit) ?

 

[HeIsHere]

Once you are yoked, you remain yielded. It isn't a continual choice of yielding. It's a resting in the original choice. You move as the One who you are yoked to moves. He carries or bears you along.
There exists a greater and more intimate relationship with God than many have come to know.

Yes you have posted on this before, it was one of my favorite posts of yours, I completely relate to this.

 

[Rufus]

I doubt you can prove with Scripture where such contradictions exist. I'm prepared to look at your evidence but won't agree to accepting your interpretations. Convince me. Merry-go-round once again?

Fallen man with information God has placed into and surrounding him, has the responsibility unto God to accept that information and thus accept God. Yes, he has the ability and the freedom to do so.

It's only when you insert all of your out of context assertions that the simple logic of that truth seems illogical.

I dismiss your Ex analogy because it's not biblically accurate and you stick to it even when you're repeatedly shown Scripture that shows some of those enslaved had chosen to retain their belief that God exists no matter the harshness of their slavery. Some of them even did good within this belief or Moses would not have lived.



I dismiss the issue you have created that actually makes no sense to the argument. You can read my second paragraph above to see what the argument is.



A pocket full of coins for the merry-go-round. All you have to do is make the choice and step off.

Your repetitive avoidance of truths that not all men reject God at General Revelation is quite a problem. Take off the dark glasses and see the portions of the Text you're missing.



Morally responsible and able and free to choose to accept and retain the divine revelation placed into them by God Himself. And then there's that protoevangel God spoke at the judgment in Eden. And then there's faith in the first progeny of Adam I. And then...

You know, at some point I think the Word is clear that some stiff-necked conditions remain and even worsen. There's also Heb6 that says spiritual advance is up to God. There's also 2Tim2 that speaks of God perhaps (I recall you like this word) granting repentance to those who are opposing His teaching.

Please read all of Scripture and let Him speak for Himself.

It's you sir who avoid biblical truth. You say that my definition of Freedom is not biblical, yet how is it not? After all...we are talking about the SPIRITUAL condition of man, aren't we? Or are you just narrowly focusing one of the faculties of the human heart known as the will, as though it sits enthroned way above the heart and has the power to turn the heart any which way it desires? But in the New Covenant, did God promise to give his people just a new will? Or did he promise to give them a new heart?

You say my definition of Freedom is too restrictive or limiting? Really? So in your world there is such a thing as free slaves? Someone at once can be free and in bondage! Is that have you view Man's Image Maker: Is God also in bondage? Is He a free moral agent and also a slave? Must be since his image-bearers are and in their bondage they are still free to choose Good. Even though God-hating man is free from righteousness, holiness and goodness, he's still free to make good, righteous, holy choices? And that's how it is with the Image Maker, as well: God's nature is free from evil, darkness and profanity; yet he still has the capacity (the "freedom) to sin, to lie, to deny himself.

No, it's not me who places limitations on freedom; it's YOU, sir! You refuse to understand that freedom is a two-edged sword! To be truly free, one must be free from so that he can be free to do. Here are two of several definitions from Dictionary.com:

• exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
• the power to determine action without restraint. (emphases added)

And this is why God cannot sin and why man cannot not sin. In God's case, he's totally free from evil which is why he is free to do only what is Good; Conversely, God-hating man is totally free from goodness, righteous and holiness which is why he is a sinner who is only free to sin.

Jer 13:23
23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin
or the leopard its spots?
Neither can you do good
who are accustomed to doing evil.
NIV

And my Exodus Typology argument is spot on. Just because the narrative explicitly mentions two midwives as being God-fearers does no violence to the essence of the story: Which is: God came down to rescue a helpless people who were in bondage -- not only physically to Pharaoh (a type of Satan) but to their own dead spiritual condition which Joshua characterized as idolatry. (The two midwives typified an elect remnant upon the earth [Egypt] which God always had by the power of his own grace.) And you very conveniently ignore the fact that the Hebrews complained bitterly to Moses and didn't want their chains of slavery to be broken -- right up to the time of the parting of the Sea! How come the ancient enslaved Hebrews just couldn't freely choose to walk out of Egypt on their own!? (Could it possibly be that they they didn't want to!?) Answer me that question. (Hint: Check out Ex 14:10-12.) If they couldn't walk out of Egypt because they didn't want to, then what makes you think that God-hating sinners can choose to waltz out of Satan's kingdom of darkness and march into the Kingdom of Light by the mighty power of their own will?

And please get busy with your Adam argument. I'd love to hear your defense of Adam.

 

[Rufus]

Is Truth (word of God) not God (Spirit) ?

It is spiritual, but it's not the Holy Spirit. Read John 3 for starters.