Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

[GWH]

I'm not trying to trick anyone. The verse being considered is Romans 1:16. And I don't believe you have any fish.

Okay, then IF is implied three times in Rom. 1:16, if you can catch its drift.
(pun intended)

 

[reneweddaybyday]

You also fail to understand the uselessness of volition in HELPLESS creatures. Did the half-dead crime victim in the Parable of the Good Samaritan exercise his "freewill" before he was RESCUED by the Samaritan?

click

click

click
.

 

[HeIsHere]

But this doesn't change the fact that God's will is not contingent on man's. Plus I have given plenty of examples from scripture wherein God has often "forced" his will upon his moral creatures -- in spite of them being "volitional creatures".

You also fail to understand the uselessness of volition in HELPLESS creatures. Did the half-dead crime victim in the Parable of the Good Samaritan exercise his "freewill" before he was RESCUED by the Samaritan?

Oh right, every parable and story is about the plan of salvation and the six feet under ground crowd.

I guess we should be holding evangelistic crusades at grave yards.

 

[sawdust]

That's odd. When I read it, it said the power of God unto salvation, not the power of men.

Why on earth do you think that agreeing with the truth (believing) has some magical power to create reality? You believing the sun will rise does not make it rise. You believing it will rain when the skies are grey does not make it rain. Our believing does nothing to alter the situation. The reason the situation changes (from death to life) is because this is what the LORD God has promised to those who believe. John 3:16

Now you say those verses don't teach this,

I never said that and honestly how you even heard that boggles my mind. What I said was John uses "kosmos" two ways. It represents the entirety of the world and it's inhabitants or it represents the Satan like thinking system, but at no time have I found John ever use the word "kosmos" to represent believers only.

I showed you three verses where John used "kosmos" in the former sense. You chose one verse that John used "kosmos" in the latter sense but neither of which represent believers only yet you want to say the three verses I chose has "kosmos" as being only believers and the verse you chose as "kosmos" representing unbelievers only. You don't even have a consistent view of who is the "world" but leap back and forth from opposing definitions to suit your narrative.

Christ came to save sinners to which the whole world belongs. He is the Lamb who takes away the sin (singular ie the sin barrier which comprises of everyone's sin) of the world we call Earth which is composed of sinners (that's all of us) so that whosoever can believe, not just a select few and to those who do find themself believing the truth that is made known by the grace of God, God delivers them from the kingdom of darkness into His Kingdom, from death to life (regeneration), from condemnation to justification. He does not save you (regeneration) to save you with the Gospel.

Do you have any other verses that teach that Jesus paid the debt of every individual?

He didn't pay it piecemeal. You can't remove the sin barrier by leaving pieces of the sin barrier. That is not taking it away. It's either gone for all or it is not gone at all. The Lord does not look into His books Rev.20:12 to see whose sins were not nailed to the tree but whose work is compliant with His command to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Jn.6:29 All sins were nailed to the tree which, is how the Lamb can take away the sin of the world.

If anyone wants to know if their individual sins are paid for? There is but one place to be, I'll give you a hint, it is not in the world.

 

[sawdust]

All mankind is IN the world; but not all mankind is OF this world.

I know, which is why I said as much.

Easy answer: Because you're assuming that Christ died for all w/o exception -- when in fact He died for all w/o distinction.

So He died for all without distinguishing between believer and unbeliever but that is not excepting anyone because there is a third group???

Wow! That's a really significant spiritual choice... I chose to eat sausage and veggies tonight. I suppose you think that, too, was a spiritual choice?

Actually it is for me. If it were not for the Lord I might have good reasons not to get out of bed so I warmly suggest you tone down the smart-alek responses.

Lam.3:22-24
Through the Lord’s mercies we are not consumed,
Because His compassions fail not.
23 They are new every morning;
Great is Your faithfulness.
24 “The Lord is my portion,” says my soul,
“Therefore I hope in Him!”

 

[reneweddaybyday]

You can't resist arguing from silence can you?

says the one who has yet to provide sufficient Scriptural support that Adam was “exluded”.

You just cannot stick with what is actually revealed, can you?

says the one who will not respond to "what is actually revealed".

Where in scripture is the proof that Adam repented of his sins and trusted God?

says the one who refuses to believe that God's offering was sufficient to cover both Adam and Eve ... even when Scripture tells us neither Adam nor Eve continued in their fig leaf raiment, but instead both were clothed by God.

And God spared Cain here in temporal reality, but I kinda doubt Cain made it to the pearly gates since he is characterized in characterized in scripture as one of Satan's seeds (1Jn 3:12). So...unless you think heaven is filled with people who when they died died as children of the devil, then what did God's grace eternally accomplish for Cain?

re-read what was written, Rufus ... I never stated "Cain made it to the pearly gates". I specifically stated "Cain suppressed the truth in unrighteousness ... Cain chose not to humble himself ... and Cain suffered the consequence."

Also, Eve did not remain in her state of death since God reconciled her in Gen 3:15 -- AND Adam was smarter than you are because he understood the implications and ramification to what God said in 3:15 and subsequently called her the "mother of all the living".

Scriptural meaning of Gen 3:15 explained and rejected by you.

Also, the Messiah did not descend from a spiritually dead person!

you insist that Adam was "spiritually dead" yet Adam remains in the lineage of the Lord Jesus Christ as stated in Luke 3:38.

This is why he passed over Adam and does descend from him.

Adam was not "passed over" ... God's Offering was more than sufficient for both Adam and Eve and all who were in the loins of Adam and Eve ... God clothed both Adam and Eve.

To Eve, he gave life. To Adam: he remained DEAD!

rolleyes ... no Scriptural support for your statement "To Adam: he remained DEAD!"

The rest of your post is also filled with absurd errors which I'm not going to waste my time with.

whatever

And your inane remarks about Seth would be really funny if they weren't so pathetic.

you mean the revealing of Scripture according to Rufus ... yeah, pretty pathetic when you actually see what you're doing to Gen 5:3 and Luke 3:38 ... how many other verses in Scripture do you treat in the same manner?

Didn't Adam and Eve produce Cain and Abel also? One turned out to be a reprobate, the other a saint. The saint did not remain in Adam spiritually but was in Eve spiritually! You're talking physical seed/offspring whereas Gen 3:20 speaks to spiritual seed. How we know that is that the devil has a great multitude of spiritual seeds, as I proved previously.

as explained to you in Post 2668 ... you modify Scripture in your insistence that the word "seed" is plural when Scripture indicates the word "seed" is singular ... but, hey, who needs to follow Scripture when you can just change it to suit your purpose ...

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed [noun-masculine-singular] and her seed [noun-masculine-singular]; it [pronoun-masculine-singular] shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

you now know that that you know that "seed" in Gen 3:15 is singular. you can choose to insist that God really meant "seeds" plural ...
.

 

[studier]

Is the gospel the power of God unto salvation for unbelievers?

The Gospel is God's power for salvation, which power is willfully rejected by unbelievers, and willfully received by believers to whom the power is thus given because they believe and not given to others who don't believe and reject it/Him.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

Good, then provide the biblical proof that Adam responded with faith. There's evidence for Eve, but where is it for Adam? You think God's Provision proves that both A&E were saved. But it does not! You simply read your assumption into that passage.

I believe God's Offering was sufficient. You, on the other hand, seem to believe there was some sort of deficiency in the Offering.

Both Adam and Eve were clothed ... neither of them rejected or walked away in their fig leaf attire.

And for your info, I can pull the same lame argument from silence buffoonery that you do. I can just as easily say re the red highlighted remarks: Scripture doesn't say that either of the two didn't subsequently shun their God-given garbs and choose their own fashion instead. See how easy it is for me to refute you.

you do, in fact, engage in "argument from silence" in your continued insistence that "Adam was excluded" when you have provided no Scriptural support for your claim.

And your misinterpretation of Gen 3:15 ... nothing but mishandling of Scripture which you claim is refutation.
.

 

[studier]

Glad you finally recognize that Cornelius was a God-fearer. You are aware, right, that the Fear of the Lord is a unilateral, efficacious grace of God?

Open Text. Before Gen1:1 insert TULIP. Proceed with TULIP throughout Text. Close Text. Finished.

 

[GWH]

Okay, then IF is implied three times in Rom. 1:16, if you can catch its drift.
(pun intended)

IF everyone believes, IF the Jew believes, IF the Gentile believes,
all IFs implying the possibility of believing or not (aka MFW).

 

[Cameron143]

The Gospel is God's power for salvation, which power is willfully rejected by unbelievers, and willfully received by believers to whom the power is thus given because they believe and not given to others who don't believe and reject it/Him.

That's your contention, but not included in the verse. Is Isaiah 55 true? When God's word goes forth, does it always accomplish God's purpose for which He sent it? If it goes forth and does not result in salvation, is this also God's purpose? If so, was God's power manifested or withheld from those who heard?

 

[GWH]

That's your contention, but not included in the verse. Is Isaiah 55 true? When God's word goes forth, does it always accomplish God's purpose for which He sent it? If it goes forth and does not result in salvation, is this also God's purpose? If so, was God's power manifested or withheld from those who heard?

God's power to create humans rather than robots is manifested by enabling IF = MFW.

 

[Cameron143]

God's power to create humans rather than robots is manifested by enabling IF = MFW.

This is a perfectly good answer to a question I never asked. Can you answer the questions I actually asked?

 

[GWH]

This is a perfectly good answer to a question I never asked. Can you answer the questions I actually asked?

You tend to ask the wrong questions,
but what question do you want me to answer?

 

[Cameron143]

You tend to ask the wrong questions,
but what question do you want me to answer?

Questions based on scripture are wrong? Simply answer the questions in the post you responded to concerning Isaiah 55.

 

[GWH]

Questions based on scripture are wrong? Simply answer the questions in the post you responded to concerning Isaiah 55.

Which post was that?

 

[Cameron143]

Which post was that?

#2831

 

[GWH]

#2831

1. When God's word goes forth, does it always accomplish God's purpose for which He sent it?

GW can be viewed as Scripture or as Jesus or as God's will, which includes His will to create humans with MFW,
who are allowed not to cooperate with His desire for them to be saved.

2. "If it goes forth and does not result in salvation, is this also God's purpose?" Yes, because part of His purpose or
will is permissive or enabling MFW.

3. "If so, was God's power manifested or withheld from those who heard?" God's power does not force those who hear
to believe and be saved per Matt. 13:14-15.

 

[Rufus]

Oh right, every parable and story is about the plan of salvation and the six feet under ground crowd.

I guess we should be holding evangelistic crusades at grave yards.

Those of the world do not have to go to graveyards to visit or see the dead. They just have to find their nearest mirror.

 

[Rufus]

God's power to create humans rather than robots is manifested by enabling IF = MFW.

God is not responsible for what the sons of men became after our Federal Head blew his righteousness test assignment big time. Adam is the one who made his progeny into "robots".

Since the redeemed in the eternal New Order will never be able to choose between good and evil, and like God will never be able to make choices contrary to their new nature (which will be perfected at the resurrection), how will all saints in the restored Eden escape the classification of "robots"? You do understand that at the end of this age, Sin will finally die forever!? That the Law of Sin and Death will be no more?

You Shirley will not be a happy camper in the New Order....being so perfectly conformed to the image of Christ.