Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

[cv5]

You didn't understand the "neither can he know"? Do you understand that only the Holy Spirit can teach things spiritual? And that the Holy Spirit only indwells someone by their becoming saved? So, understanding is completely beyond the grasp of the unsaved. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

Neither can you know Numbers 14:22-23.

Bummer.

 

[HeIsHere]

The word can is about ability. The Spirit would have chosen a different word if He meant something else. He could have easily have said won't. . He didn't. Also, the construction of the sentence supports this. The natural man doesn't and can't.

The full context does not, nor does the whole counsel of God.

 

[Cameron143]

There are other writings of the time period which use the word that is how word meanings are also understood.

I will go with the lexicons on this..

The most well known lexicons (such as Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich, Thayer, Bullinger, Vine, etc.) are in agreement in saying that kosmos (world) as used in John 3:16 refers to "mankind, the human race."

This is the obvious sense of the word in this context.

J.C. Ryle wrote,

"It seems to be a violent straining of language to confine the word world to the elect...The world means the whole race of mankind...without any exception...I have long come to the conclusion that men may be more systematic in their statements than the Bible, and may be led into grave error by idolatrous veneration of a [theological] system."

Of course you go with can't means can.

 

[Cameron143]

There are other writings of the time period where the word is used, that is how word meanings are also understood.

I will go with the lexicons on this..

The most well known lexicons (such as Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich, Thayer, Bullinger, Vine, etc.) are in agreement in saying that kosmos (world) as used in John 3:16 refers to "mankind, the human race."

This is the obvious sense of the word in this context.

J.C. Ryle wrote,

"It seems to be a violent straining of language to confine the word world to the elect...The world means the whole race of mankind...without any exception...I have long come to the conclusion that men may be more systematic in their statements than the Bible, and may be led into grave error by idolatrous veneration of a [theological] system."

The ol' my scholar is bigger than your scholar routine.

 

[Cameron143]

The full context does not, nor does the whole counsel of God.

Sure it does. Where else in the word of God does can't means can?

 

[cv5]

I love it when you assume into your arguments things never stated.

I never stated the natural man cannot be taught the gospel. He can learn it the same way he can learn other subjects.

I didn't contrast the natural man with the spiritual man. I dealt with what the scripture says about the natural man.

When the words...neither can he...are employed...inability is certainly in view. You can ignore the verse if you like and ignore the truth of scripture if you like, I will not.

The natural man decides to remain so because he refused the offer of the Spirit, Who would have provided the wisdom and understanding of God.

The text is utterly clear on the matter.

 

[cv5]

You didn't understand the "neither can he know"? Do you understand that only the Holy Spirit can teach things spiritual? And that the Holy Spirit only indwells someone by their becoming saved? So, understanding is completely beyond the grasp of the unsaved. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

What I can say with certainty is:
If you CHOOSE to edit "RECEIVETH NOT" from that passage, THEN you will surely suffer the consequences.

 

[Cameron143]

The natural man decides to remain so because he refused the offer of the Spirit, Who would have provided the wisdom and understanding of God.

The text is utterly clear on the matter.

I get it. Can't means can for you.

 

[Magenta]

The text does NOT preclude the natural man being taught the Good NEWS!!

He can neither receive it nor comprehend it. You have him deciding to believe what he hears as foolishness.

He is blinded but you have him seeing. Scripture says he can't but you say he can. Then you pretend you understand context
and harmonizing. You don't. Now you may decide to believe what you hear as foolishness but it is not a normal thing.

You guys remind me of Oprah and the millions of people she influenced back in the day, making her rich probably beyond
her wildest dreams. She would call herself a Christian and then directly contradict what Jesus said. People loved it. They
believed her nonsense. Why? Because they wanted to, and they had no idea what the Bible actually taught. Just like you.

 

[cv5]

He can neither receive it.

False. As has been proven ad nauseum.

 

[cv5]

There are other writings of the time period where the word is used, that is how word meanings are also understood.

I will go with the lexicons on this..

The most well known lexicons (such as Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich, Thayer, Bullinger, Vine, etc.) are in agreement in saying that kosmos (world) as used in John 3:16 refers to "mankind, the human race."

This is the obvious sense of the word in this context.

J.C. Ryle wrote,

"It seems to be a violent straining of language to confine the word world to the elect...The world means the whole race of mankind...without any exception...I have long come to the conclusion that men may be more systematic in their statements than the Bible, and may be led into grave error by idolatrous veneration of a [theological] system."

All of this determinist banter begs the question:
What is the underlying deficiency makes their every reply and response contrary to valid sound Scriptural doctrine?

I mean even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
Frankly its pretty disturbing to ponder the reasons for the 100% failure rate.

 

[cv5]

The full context does not, nor does the whole counsel of God.

I dumped every determinist gleaning I ever had when I was confronted with the truth of the matter.

I mean one after another but instantly for each.

 

[HeIsHere]

I get it. Can't means can for you.

Keep reading...

 

[HeIsHere]

All of this determinist banter begs the question:
What is the underlying deficiency makes their every reply and response contrary to valid sound Scriptural doctrine?

I mean even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
Frankly its pretty disturbing to ponder the reasons for the 100% failure rate.

Context is king, but there's no throne for him to sit upon in Calvinism.

100 % failure rate on that for sure.
I suspect there are other "deficiencies" as well.[/QUOTE]

 

[Magenta]

Of course you go with can't means can.

It has been her position all along. Scripture says, the world cannot receive the spirit of truth. Her view is, it can. Scripture says the man of flesh (unregenerated) cannot submit to or obey God. Her view is, he can. Scripture says the natural man cannot receive the spiritual things of God. She says he can. Scripture says the natural man cannot understand the spiritual things of God. She says he can. Scripture says a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit. Her view is, it can. Scripture says the natural man is opposed to the spiritual things of God. Her view is, he is not. Scripture says the gospel is hid. She says the gospel is not hid. Jesus said not everyone hears. She says everyone hears. Scripture says flesh serves the law of sin and brings forth fruit unto death. She of course disagrees. The flesh in her theology chooses to make a decision a plethora of Scriptures say it cannot, to bring forth fruit unto life. Scripture says the devil has taken people captive to do his will. She calls this, man having a will that is free. No matter how you look at it, her theological stance on this issue directly contradicts and outright denies what the Bible explicitly articulates, and she is not likely to change it any time soon because to bring her view into line with what Scripture actually teaches would bring her whole house of cards down. and demolish her vain self-exalting stance. She cannot have that. She is far too attached to it. One could even say she was in love with it. She certainly loves it more than the Truth of Scripture.

 

[lrs68]

Keep reading...

Don't let him sucker you.
Literally and I affirm Literally the only Scholars that use his definition of kosmos when you research are practicing Reformed believers. Out of [(all of the Scholars from 200 AD until today)] that ever made his claim were well known Reformed believers. You might think there's many but actually it only represents 2%. 98% use kosmos how every Greek has ever used it meaning the entire creation which is people and everything.

So he is yanking your leg with only a 2% support system that aren't independent but 100% Reformed. That bias would never hold up in a court of law, especially God's court of Law.

 

[Cameron143]

Don't let him sucker you.
Literally and I affirm Literally the only Scholars that use his definition of kosmos when you research are practicing Reformed believers. Out of [(all of the Scholars from 200 AD until today)] that ever made his claim were well known Reformed believers. You might think there's many but actually it only represents 2%. 98% use kosmos how every Greek has ever used it meaning the entire creation which is people and everything.

So he is yanking your leg with only a 2% support system that aren't independent but 100% Reformed. That bias would never hold up in a court of law, especially God's court of Law.

You realize if you maintain your definition of world as all humanity, then according to 1 John 5:19 all Christians are under the control of the evil one. Is this your claim? Are Christians under the control of the evil one?

 

[Magenta]

You realize if you maintain your definition of world as all humanity, then according to 1 John 5:19 all Christians
are under the control of the evil one. Is this your claim? Are Christians under the control of the evil one?

I wonder if they know what it means to be called out of the world? A while back I got the distinct
impression from responses you were giving to someone (or maybe more than one) that I have on
ignore, who had gone into conniptions of condemnation because I praised God for calling me out
of the world. These people fall all over themselves to say God loves people but then when we
affirm His love for our own selves they hate it. What is wrong with them??? They say one thing
and then go in the exact opposite direction. They do seem to have split tongue syndrome.

 

[Cameron143]

I wonder if they know what it means to be called out of the world? A while back I got the distinct
impression from responses you were giving to someone (or maybe more than one) that I have on
ignore, who had gone into conniptions of condemnation because I praised God for calling me out
of the world. These people fall all over themselves to say God loves people but them when we
affirm His love for our own selves they hate it. What is wrong with them??? They say one thing and
then go in the exact opposite direction. They do seem to have split tongue syndrome.

They don't follow their conclusions through to their logical end. For all the deep thinking they think they do, they are largely illogical and end up believing things easily shown to be contrary to scripture. In some cases, they have to change the meaning of words. Bizarre.

 

[HeIsHere]

You realize if you maintain your definition of world as all humanity, then according to 1 John 5:19 all Christians are under the control of the evil one. Is this your claim? Are Christians under the control of the evil one?

No, again context.

Humanity in general, the world, of all humanity but especially believers as the special object of God's love, eg, John 3:16, 17c, 6:33, 51, 12:47b, et

The system of human existence (worldly ways) in its many aspects, the world, ... (b) the world , and all that belongs to it, appears as that which is hostile to God, ie, lost in sin, wholly at odds with anything divine, ruined and depraved, eg, 1 John 5:4, 2:17, etc.

"worldly affairs; the aggregate of things earthly; the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments, riches, advantages, pleasures, etc., which, although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ": Galatians 6:14; 1 John 2:16; 1 John 3:17; εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου, to be of earthly origin and nature,

https://biblehub.com/greek/2889.htm