Apologetics: witnessing to atheists

[Bible_Highlighter]

First, I would like to know how a person is able to see a "broader pattern" before seeing the individual parts of the pattern. I can see how that is possible when beholding a picture, but not when considering translations.

Second, as enamored as you are with the KJV, this should not demean translators of other Bible versions. Translating the extant manuscripts is neither an exact science nor a zero sum game. Both sets of translators and the results of their efforts can be parts of the elephant's description.

Third, I have seen some discrepancies between the KJV and NIV couplets that you shared so far, and I tend to agree with you that the KJV is preferable for most of them, but this does not mean the NIV is heretical or demonic. I have seen no "changed doctrine" that contradicts GRFS per the Gospel, but I am keeping an open mind while wondering whether it is you who is fixated on the forest or quibbling about words (logomacheo, 1Tim. 6:4, 2Tim. 2:14).

Fourth, I admire those of you who have the gift of languages, because I certainly do not have that kind of memory,
so my concern using the gift of editing has been interpreting what y'all come up with in a way that is most coherent or harmonizes the most of GW.

Fifth, I am glad you can see that I agree with you on several points, because the reason you do not see my response as refuting your argument is because I am not trying to do that. So far I have agreed that the KJV is better than the NIV because of translating imrah as word rather than as some subcategory in Psalms 12:6, 138:2, and 119:140. I note that you agree emunah can mean faithfulness or steadfastness in Psalms 96:13. I understand that in Psalm 12:7 viewing "them" as referring to people is an interpretive decision, not a grammatical necessity, and I wonder if that is not true of a lot of the couplets. I am glad you affirmed my understanding of Romans 10:17 correctly (rhema theou vs. rhema Christou) as a textual difference, not merely a translation choice.

Sixth, is there some good reason that some translators follow the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts rather than the Textus Receptus at some points?

Seventh, I view all of Scripture as potentially red letters because of belief in what you called illumination. That is why regarding 1 Peter 2:2 and 1Peter 1:23 I do not want translators to omit important words like logikos and eis ton aiōna, because I see the HS (spiritual nourishment) and heaven implicit. I also see how “perishable” and “imperishable” for phthartos and aphthartos, removes the moral implication of “corruptible” and “incorruptible.”

So, while I may see a pattern emerging, I want us to be careful lest we force every couplet to fit into a preconceived mold.
Right?

You are still not getting it. If I only had one pattern, then you may be onto something here and call it a fluke, but the sheer number of these patterns of changes that go in a bad direction when looking at the Critical Text and its translations is too hard to dismiss. I have about 21 or so changes in Modern Bibles that water down the deity of Jesus Christ. That is another pattern. There is the blood atonement that is watered down in Modern Versions. That is yet another pattern. The Substitutionary Atonement. New Age teachings. The devil being exalted. Fasting is also watered down. God rewarding His people is watered down. The patterns keep piling up. You may be able to take down one or two verses from your perspective in one of these patterns, but you cannot take them all down individually in all of them. There are multiple pictures here or multiple patterns. That just means you are not willing to see the bigger picture of all these patterns, and there are even more I have not mentioned here. Multiple pictures and not just one. That is why you will not see reason. Also, what you are not considering is that the very belief you hold to is promoted in the very translations you prefer, just like Jehovah's Witnesses favor their catered translation that favors their beliefs. Even now as I type this, I know this will not convince you. You have been brainwashed by Modern Scholarship to think like a Textual Critic to add or delete from the Bible what you think should be in or out. It's like taking a drug. It's addicting to mutilate the Word of God like it's a piece of meat to be chopped at the butcher shop. I know that God will not be pleased by such efforts.



,,,,

 

[GWH]

You are still not getting it. If I only had one pattern, then you may be onto something here and call it a fluke, but the sheer number of these patterns of changes that go in a bad direction when looking at the Critical Text and its translations is too hard to dismiss. I have about 21 or so changes in Modern Bibles that water down the deity of Jesus Christ. That is another pattern. There is the blood atonement that is watered down in Modern Versions. That is yet another pattern. The Substitutionary Atonement. New Age teachings. The devil being exalted. Fasting is also watered down. God rewarding His people is watered down. The patterns keep piling up. You may be able to take down one or two verses from your perspective in one of these patterns, but you cannot take them all down individually in all of them. There are multiple pictures here or multiple patterns. That just means you are not willing to see the bigger picture of all these patterns, and there are even more I have not mentioned here. Multiple pictures and not just one. That is why you will not see reason. Also, what you are not considering is that the very belief you hold to is promoted in the very translations you prefer, just like Jehovah's Witnesses favor their catered translation that favors their beliefs. Even now as I type this, I know this will not convince you. You have been brainwashed by Modern Scholarship to think like a Textual Critic to add or delete from the Bible what you think should be in or out. It's like taking a drug. It's addicting to mutilate the Word of God like it's a piece of meat to be chopped at the butcher shop. I know that God will not be pleased by such efforts.
,,,,

On the contrary, it is you who once again went off on a rant instead of responding to my reply point by point.
I think I am beginning to see a pattern, but I will try again:

First, I would like to know how a person is able to see a "broader pattern" before seeing the individual parts of the pattern. I can see how that is possible when beholding a picture, but not when considering translations. Were you zapped with seeing a pattern before comparing couplets? Would that not be prejudging?

Second, as enamored as you are with the KJV, this should not demean translators of other Bible versions. Do you think you are the only translator in the world who loves GW? Translating the extant manuscripts is neither an exact science nor a zero sum game. Both sets of translators and the results of their efforts can be parts of the elephant's description. Do you get what I mean?

Third, I have seen some discrepancies between the KJV and NIV couplets that you shared so far, and I tend to agree with you that the KJV is preferable for most of them, but this does not mean the 1984 NIV is heretical or demonic. I have seen no "changed doctrine" that contradicts GRFS per the Gospel, but I am keeping an open mind while wondering whether it is you who is fixated on the forest or quibbling about words (logomacheo, 1Tim. 6:4, 2Tim. 2:14). (Just trying to be objective, not pejorative.)

Fourth, I admire those of you who have the gift of languages, because I certainly do not have that kind of memory,
so my concern using the gift of editing has been interpreting what y'all come up with in a way that is most coherent or harmonizes the most of GW. Again, I admire your translating ability/gift, but not necessarily so far your gift of gab/discussion.

Fifth, I am glad you can see that I agree with you on several points, because the reason you do not see my response as refuting your argument is because I am not trying to do that. So far I have agreed that the KJV is better than the NIV because of translating imrah as word rather than as some subcategory in Psalms 12:6, 138:2, and 119:140. I note that you agree emunah can mean faithfulness or steadfastness in Psalms 96:13. I understand that in Psalm 12:7 viewing "them" as referring to people is an interpretive decision, not a grammatical necessity, and I wonder if that is not true of a lot of the couplets. I am glad you affirmed my understanding of Romans 10:17 correctly (rhema theou vs. rhema Christou) as a textual difference, not merely a translation choice. Are you familiar with the song "Accentuate the Positive"? Do you agree with its lyrics?

Sixth, is there some good reason that some translators follow the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts rather than the Textus Receptus at some points? (Or are they all dumb as doornails?)

Seventh, I view all of Scripture as potentially red letters because of belief in what you called illumination. That is why regarding 1 Peter 2:2 and 1Peter 1:23 I do not want translators to omit important words like logikos and eis ton aiōna, because I see the HS (spiritual nourishment) and heaven implicit. I also see how “perishable” and “imperishable” for phthartos and aphthartos, removes the moral implication of “corruptible” and “incorruptible.” Do you agree?

So, while I may see a pattern emerging, I want us to be careful lest we force every couplet to fit into a preconceived mold.
Right? Agree with not prejudging an entire version based on a couple of wrong couplets? Does the KJV never get it wrong in a compared couplet?

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

On the contrary, it is you who once again went off on a rant instead of responding to my reply point by point.
I think I am beginning to see a pattern, but I will try again:

First, I would like to know how a person is able to see a "broader pattern" before seeing the individual parts of the pattern. I can see how that is possible when beholding a picture, but not when considering translations. Were you zapped with seeing a pattern before comparing couplets? Would that not be prejudging?

Second, as enamored as you are with the KJV, this should not demean translators of other Bible versions. Do you think you are the only translator in the world who loves GW? Translating the extant manuscripts is neither an exact science nor a zero sum game. Both sets of translators and the results of their efforts can be parts of the elephant's description. Do you get what I mean?

Third, I have seen some discrepancies between the KJV and NIV couplets that you shared so far, and I tend to agree with you that the KJV is preferable for most of them, but this does not mean the 1984 NIV is heretical or demonic. I have seen no "changed doctrine" that contradicts GRFS per the Gospel, but I am keeping an open mind while wondering whether it is you who is fixated on the forest or quibbling about words (logomacheo, 1Tim. 6:4, 2Tim. 2:14). (Just trying to be objective, not pejorative.)

Fourth, I admire those of you who have the gift of languages, because I certainly do not have that kind of memory,
so my concern using the gift of editing has been interpreting what y'all come up with in a way that is most coherent or harmonizes the most of GW. Again, I admire your translating ability/gift, but not necessarily so far your gift of gab/discussion.

Fifth, I am glad you can see that I agree with you on several points, because the reason you do not see my response as refuting your argument is because I am not trying to do that. So far I have agreed that the KJV is better than the NIV because of translating imrah as word rather than as some subcategory in Psalms 12:6, 138:2, and 119:140. I note that you agree emunah can mean faithfulness or steadfastness in Psalms 96:13. I understand that in Psalm 12:7 viewing "them" as referring to people is an interpretive decision, not a grammatical necessity, and I wonder if that is not true of a lot of the couplets. I am glad you affirmed my understanding of Romans 10:17 correctly (rhema theou vs. rhema Christou) as a textual difference, not merely a translation choice. Are you familiar with the song "Accentuate the Positive"? Do you agree with its lyrics?

Sixth, is there some good reason that some translators follow the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts rather than the Textus Receptus at some points? (Or are they all dumb as doornails?)

Seventh, I view all of Scripture as potentially red letters because of belief in what you called illumination. That is why regarding 1 Peter 2:2 and 1Peter 1:23 I do not want translators to omit important words like logikos and eis ton aiōna, because I see the HS (spiritual nourishment) and heaven implicit. I also see how “perishable” and “imperishable” for phthartos and aphthartos, removes the moral implication of “corruptible” and “incorruptible.” Do you agree?

So, while I may see a pattern emerging, I want us to be careful lest we force every couplet to fit into a preconceived mold.
Right? Agree with not prejudging an entire version based on a couple of wrong couplets? Does the KJV never get it wrong in a compared couplet?

I am not here to convince you by my words alone. Only God can do that.

The full weight of my argument is laid out in my PDF.
Again, you can check it out at www.affectionsabove.com.

Reading through the 77 documented doctrinal changes does not take long, if you do not include the longer sub-articles, which are supplemental.

If you are not persuaded after honestly examining that material, then there is nothing further I can offer.

I can point you to the facts, but you must choose whether you will believe what God’s word says.

Believing the Bible requires faith. This discussion is ultimately about the authority of Scripture itself, a subject that modern scholarship consistently minimizes or sidesteps.

At this point, I do not see a productive path forward in continuing this discussion, since you do not appear to acknowledge or grasp the seriousness of the issues within the Modern Bible Movement you are aligned with.

The truths I am addressing here are spiritual in nature. They must be examined in the light of Scripture and approached prayerfully. This is not something that can be resolved by appealing to a dictionary or lexicon alone, nor by attempting to dismantle an argument through small, piecemeal objections simply because you are uncomfortable with the idea of God preserving His word for His people today in seventeenth-century English.

Scripture itself teaches that God has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27).



....

 

[studier]

I do not believe you are taking the full weight of the evidence that is in favor for the TR/KJV position. There are only three major positions today in the world of scholarship. The Majority Text position is minor and non-influential and its empire was shrouded by the cloud of Orthodox Christianity enforcing its rule through executions, imprisonments, and exiles over several centuries, etc.; The Critical Text Movement is rooted in deceptions involving its origin and had unitarians that were influential in its early beginnings. The Nestle and Aland text is essentially the Westcott and Hort Greek reconstruction of trying to smash together Vaticanus and Sinaiticus exists today in the Nestle and Aland tradition. The Nestle and Aland may use 50 or so other MSS but only in a minor way. The tradition is still Vaticanus and Sinaiticus priority. The tradition is a never ending shape-shifter Greek Nestle and Aland text. The NA is like a terminator. It will not stop. It will continue to keep coming out and promoting its web deception. It was never a Bible used in church history ever. Nobody used an amalgam of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in the early centuries. Aleph and Codex B disagree with each other in 3,000 places. So, I am sorry. History is not on your side. You mention the NET Bible as if that was anything good. It's an absolute dumpster fire of a translation because Dan Wallace spews forth lots of false statements that one can verify as being false on their own with a basic internet search. The TR tradition which is settled in the KJV as its final form is the only tradition that has a settled text. It is a major influential Bible line that has a doctrinal purity when compared to the Critical Text.



......

I'm sure you don't but I'm stopping at your first sentence. Not interested. I'm way past relying on any English translation and over the years found myself very naturally having very little interest in the KJV even though I keep it open on my screen along with several others as I work in Greek and look to see what translations are saying.

As I sign off, I spot Dan Wallace's name and wonder what makes you think you can speak so strongly against him while not providing any link to supposed comments he's made. As I said, your tactics are simply disrespectful and thus childish. If I want input on the topic there are several to refer to - and I have listened to and read some of them - who don't rely on ad hominem and other fallacious tactics.

 

[GWH]

I am not here to convince you by my words alone. Only God can do that.

The full weight of my argument is laid out in my PDF.
Again, you can check it out at www.affectionsabove.com.

Reading through the 77 documented doctrinal changes does not take long, if you do not include the longer sub-articles, which are supplemental.

If you are not persuaded after honestly examining that material, then there is nothing further I can offer.

I can point you to the facts, but you must choose whether you will believe what God’s word says.

Believing the Bible requires faith. This discussion is ultimately about the authority of Scripture itself, a subject that modern scholarship consistently minimizes or sidesteps.

At this point, I do not see a productive path forward in continuing this discussion, since you do not appear to acknowledge or grasp the seriousness of the issues within the Modern Bible Movement you are aligned with.

The truths I am addressing here are spiritual in nature. They must be examined in the light of Scripture and approached prayerfully. This is not something that can be resolved by appealing to a dictionary or lexicon alone, nor by attempting to dismantle an argument through small, piecemeal objections simply because you are uncomfortable with the idea of God preserving His word for His people today in seventeenth-century English.

Scripture itself teaches that God has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27).
....

Re "I do not see a productive path forward in continuing this discussion": So the pattern I discerned
of you preferring to dictate rather than discuss was correct.
Well, then, Happy trails!

 

[Blue155]

Well, this thread has completely went off topic lol.

 

[Jordon]

Well, this thread has completely went off topic lol.

yeah I think we need some apologies to get it back on track

 

[GWH]

Well, this thread has completely went off topic lol.

Per the OP, yes, but in #500 on p. 25 I recalibrated this thread on Apologetics as applicable also to heresy beginning with tulipism
as well as to atheism, saying:

"Although my original calling was to witness mainly to atheists (for which my Baptist upbringing had made me ill-prepared),
after participating on CC for a year, I now feel a calling to witness also to tulipists (which is what several of us MFWers have been doing on various threads), and at this point I have enough content on that topic so that I am considering whether to add another lesson on our website for consolidating the information as a resource and perhaps also beginning a corresponding thread for the same purpose."

The thread I added for systematically exposing the tulipist heresy is "Resolving Problematic Interpretations of Scripture", but we can also discuss other problematic topics (such as idolizing the KJV or Judaizing the Gospel) here and there.

Over Bro...

 

[Jordon]

Per the OP, yes, but in #500 on p. 25 I recalibrated this thread on Apologetics as applicable also to heresy beginning with tulipism
as well as to atheism, saying:

"Although my original calling was to witness mainly to atheists (for which my Baptist upbringing had made me ill-prepared),
after participating on CC for a year, I now feel a calling to witness also to tulipists (which is what several of us MFWers have been doing on various threads), and at this point I have enough content on that topic so that I am considering whether to add another lesson on our website for consolidating the information as a resource and perhaps also beginning a corresponding thread for the same purpose."

The thread I added for systematically exposing the tulipist heresy is "Resolving Problematic Interpretations of Scripture", but we can also discuss other problematic topics (such as idolizing the KJV or Judaizing the Gospel) here and there.

Over Bro...

Tho i walk through the valley of death i shall fear no evil is not just about what a person can do, but about how there able to fear no evil.

Now a person not led by the spirit ie in a place where they have yet received the spirit, the light to there soul, will not have any fear for evil at all, because the fact the person is fearing evil and then not fearing evil, is because there spirit isn't depraved, they see evil they sense evil they fear that evil in a healthy way, then they stay in fear of that evil and they pass through,

So there ability is one that doesn't lack inability, moral free will may have it's good points but I would believe it's an immoral free will to argue against that beautiful tulip that makes you call upon the name of the lord

 

[GWH]

Tho i walk through the valley of death i shall fear no evil is not just about what a person can do, but about how there able to fear no evil.

Now a person not led by the spirit ie in a place where they have yet received the spirit, the light to there soul, will not have any fear for evil at all, because the fact the person is fearing evil and then not fearing evil, is because there spirit isn't depraved, they see evil they sense evil they fear that evil in a healthy way, then they stay in fear of that evil and they pass through,

So there ability is one that doesn't lack inability, moral free will may have it's good points but I would believe it's an immoral free will to argue against that beautiful tulip that makes you call upon the name of the lord

Well, please feel free to join me on the "Resolving Problematic Interpretations of Scripture" if you are willing to explore with the courage it takes to change/free one's mind from previous misconceptions when confronted with God's Truth/the Word of the Spirit whether tulip is beautiful or horrible/heretical.

 

[Jordon]

Well, please feel free to join me on the "Resolving Problematic Interpretations of Scripture" if you are willing to explore with the courage it takes to change/free one's mind from previous misconceptions when confronted with God's Truth/the Word of the Spirit whether tulip is beautiful or horrible/heretical.

I just did share with you, tho it didn't take much courage at all, it just a little bit of understanding that the message of tulip is really only about opening people eyes to search the scriptures

 

[Jordon]

How long have you been searching the scriptures because of tulip

 

[GWH]

I just did share with you, tho it didn't take much courage at all, it just a little bit of understanding that the message of tulip is really only about opening people eyes to search the scriptures

No, the message of tulip is this:
T – total depravity, meaning souls are unable to exercise sufficient MFW to seek salvation.
U – unconditional election, meaning that souls need not satisfy a divine requirement/condition such as faith or repentance, but God chooses to save some while damning the rest to hell.
L – limited atonement, meaning that Christ died to pay the penalty of sin only for elect souls.
I – irresistible grace, meaning that elect souls cannot resist or refuse God’s will for them to be saved.
P – perseverance of the saints, meaning that the elect cannot repudiate their salvation and commit apostasy, because God perseveres in keeping them saved.

I am sponsoring a search of the Scriptures regarding this dogma on the "Resolving Problematic Interpretations of Scripture"
for those who are not brain-washed by it but instead whose minds are open to learning GW about MFW.

 

[GWH]

How long have you been searching the scriptures because of tulip

At about age 18 (57 years ago) I began searching GW because a missionary daughter friend became an atheist and I learned that my favorite HS teacher was a former Christian minister who became an atheist, but as a Southern Baptist who was supposed to believe the P, I also took note of the 16+ NT passages teaching that apostasy was possible--as exemplified by the two cases I cited.

 

[Watchman22]

Well, please feel free to join me on the "Resolving Problematic Interpretations of Scripture" if you are willing to explore with the courage it takes to change/free one's mind from previous misconceptions when confronted with God's Truth/the Word of the Spirit whether tulip is beautiful or horrible/heretical.

Hi GWH,
Is your thread only for misinterpretation concerning TULIP, or are you looking at any misinterpreted scripture?

 

[Jordon]

No, the message of tulip is this:
T – total depravity, meaning souls are unable to exercise sufficient MFW to seek salvation.
U – unconditional election, meaning that souls need not satisfy a divine requirement/condition such as faith or repentance, but God chooses to save some while damning the rest to hell.
L – limited atonement, meaning that Christ died to pay the penalty of sin only for elect souls.
I – irresistible grace, meaning that elect souls cannot resist or refuse God’s will for them to be saved.
P – perseverance of the saints, meaning that the elect cannot repudiate their salvation and commit apostasy, because God perseveres in keeping them saved.

I am sponsoring a search of the Scriptures regarding this dogma on the "Resolving Problematic Interpretations of Scripture"
for those who are not brain-washed by it but instead whose minds are open to learning GW about MFW.

At about age 18 (57 years ago) I began searching GW because a missionary daughter friend became an atheist and I learned that my favorite HS teacher was a former Christian minister who became an atheist, but as a Southern Baptist who was supposed to believe the P, I also took note of the 16+ NT passages teaching that apostasy was possible--as exemplified by the two cases I cited.

I believe the same rules applies really, to both these posts.

The lord moving in a persons life is not always fully realised how he moved until one day they realise, that because of the way in which they use to challenge his word and deny what others believe, you came to believe, and have full knowledge, and people learn my mistakes and trials.

The lord moves in mysterious ways, but one man's testimony isn't always grounds to believe there knowledge over his word, as testimonies are for showing your belief, and shouldn't be used to override his belief.

Neither should a lifetime of knowledge be used to miss represent what others believe on the bases your knowledge may be more knowledgeable,

The lord can use anyone for any reason to get his message across, and all tulip does is deliver a simple message, but in blunt terms to get a person searching the scriptures, which you've probably done more than ever because of tulip, or you've done a lot of searching of the scriptures because of tulip, so perhaps you haven't woken up to that fact yet, because I know fine well reformers teach and preach is word is alive and active and can save anyone anytime anyplace, when it's delivered, and when it's delivered in away in which isn't hostile, then even more so can a person receive.

 

[GWH]

Hi GWH,
Is your thread only for misinterpretation concerning TULIP, or are you looking at any misinterpreted scripture?

This thread began for the purpose of applying Scripture to answer criticisms by atheism in order to inoculate new Christians against reverting to skepticism, but in #500 I broadened the OP to include discussion of dogmas that pervert the Gospel, especially tulipism.

The "Resolving Problematic Interpretations of Scripture" thread began for the purpose of sharing a systematic study of Scriptures regarding the problematic dogma of tulipism, but other topics are welcome as long as they are studied systematically instead of degenerating into a game of ping-pong and pot shots like we find on some other threads about such topics.

Please feel free to join both-and.

 

[Jordon]

This thread began for the purpose of applying Scripture to answer criticisms by atheism in order to inoculate new Christians against reverting to skepticism, but in #500 I broadened the OP to include discussion of dogmas that pervert the Gospel, especially tulipism.

The "Resolving Problematic Interpretations of Scripture" thread began for the purpose of sharing a systematic study of Scriptures regarding the problematic dogma of tulipism, but other topics are welcome as long as they are studied systematically instead of degenerating into a game of ping-pong and pot shots like we find on some other threads about such topics.

Please feel free to join both-and.

interesting how you see tulip as perverse when you can't even recognise you've been searching the scriptures because of tulip.

I sense with you, tulip as took the road of one of its intentions sadly, which is your pride will be your downfall if you don't see the truth of tulip

 

[GWH]

I believe the same rules applies really, to both these posts.

The lord moving in a persons life is not always fully realised how he moved until one day they realise, that because of the way in which they use to challenge his word and deny what others believe, you came to believe, and have full knowledge, and people learn my mistakes and trials.

The lord moves in mysterious ways, but one man's testimony isn't always grounds to believe there knowledge over his word, as testimonies are for showing your belief, and shouldn't be used to override his belief.

Neither should a lifetime of knowledge be used to miss represent what others believe on the bases your knowledge may be more knowledgeable,

The lord can use anyone for any reason to get his message across, and all tulip does is deliver a simple message, but in blunt terms to get a person searching the scriptures, which you've probably done more than ever because of tulip, or you've done a lot of searching of the scriptures because of tulip, so perhaps you haven't woken up to that fact yet, because I know fine well reformers teach and preach is word is alive and active and can save anyone anytime anyplace, when it's delivered, and when it's delivered in away in which isn't hostile, then even more so can a person receive.

Jordan, it is no use to kick against the goad of what tulip means.
I encourage you to compare it with what MFW means (its good points)
and then decide which belief is better.

M – moral requirement, meaning that God’s requirement for salvation (GRFS) is righteousness, which presumes sinners are morally accountable.

F – free faith, meaning that GRFS or condition for attaining righteousness is IF they believe in GW, which implies sinners are enabled by God to repent, seek salvation and believe the Gospel of Christ’s atonement–but they may resist divine grace.

W – will, meaning that the essence of moral faith is the desire to cooperate with God, and choosing to cooperate with God opens the door of a sinner’s heart to the entrance of Christ’s loving Holy Spirit.

 

[Jordon]

Jordan, it is no use to kick against the goad of what tulip means.
I encourage you to compare it with what MFW means (its good points)
and then decide which belief is better.

M – moral requirement, meaning that God’s requirement for salvation (GRFS) is righteousness, which presumes sinners are morally accountable.

F – free faith, meaning that GRFS or condition for attaining righteousness is IF they believe in GW, which implies sinners are enabled by God to repent, seek salvation and believe the Gospel of Christ’s atonement–but they may resist divine grace.

W – will, meaning that the essence of moral faith is the desire to cooperate with God, and choosing to cooperate with God opens the door of a sinner’s heart to the entrance of Christ’s loving Holy Spirit.

moral free will your moral free will or the lords moral free will. ?

Does the lords will tell you a person is not saved without his light, well yes

Does an unsaved persons will tell you he can save himself, well yes.

Limited atonement Does the lords tell you I give you repentance, well yes

Does an unsaved persons will justify his actions when repentance is given, well yes

Irresistible grace by the lords will,

Does the believer who's been made to believe find his grace irresistible, well yes

Does the person who was made to believe but didn't, find his grace irresistible, well yes to that to

Preserves in faith by the lords will, does the believer know his faith is the lord, well yes.

Does the fake believe hold his own faith higher than anyone else puting his will first well yes.

Now I could go into to include the u here and t but the same rule applies, and I doubt you'll take any notice, as your bad ideas are to deeply ingrained, for whatever reason they are,.you have to help yourself,