Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

[posthuman]

I made sure to say.....

Jeremiah 4:25

Professor Stan Ashby exegeted and explained how the term "no man was found" was speaking of a generic term/form for a man.
The word Adam was not used. But it can be translated "man."

"the first man, Adam"

in Corinthians includes both the generic term ((man)) and the specific nominative, Adam.


if your guy is right, Corinthians contains lies, so we must delete all of Paul's writings from the NT, and also Peter and Luke's because Peter affirmed Paul is scripture and Luke wrote based on the testimony of Peter.

 

[cv5]

Yes, I admit it, but I disagree - nothing was needed from me, but that God chose me - it was given as a free gift, hence entirely from God's grace and mercy, not by my works. God is an exceedingly gracious and merciful Father through Jesus Christ the Savior. Apparently, you haven't experienced it yet. That is not to say that I don't desire Christ as Savior, but that desire came after and from salvation, not as a way to salvation.

[1Pe 2:3 KJV] 3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord [is] gracious.

So what you are really saying that you had this "feeling" that you "pre-knew" the gospel if and when you supposedly heard it, and therefore concluded that you must have won the "pre-birth sovereign lottery"?

And your views on soteriology are a result of the foregoing?

I am quite sure that this is precisely @Magenta 's testimony as well. Correct?

What do you think @studier @HeIsHere ? Make any sense?

 

[posthuman]

"the first man, Adam"

in Corinthians includes both the generic term ((man)) and the specific nominative, Adam.


if your guy is right, Corinthians contains lies, so we must delete all of Paul's writings from the NT, and also Peter and Luke's because Peter affirmed Paul is scripture and Luke wrote based on the testimony of Peter.

hmm since Christ affirmed Peter too, we must delete Him as well.


wow one weird stab at aligning the faith with secular evolutionary monism and suddenly there is no NT at all

 

[Magenta]

I am quite sure that this is precisely @Magenta 's testimony as well. Correct?

Wrong as usual. Just more fabrications from your vain imagination.

 

[Magenta]

Romans 1 v 16-17 I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believes; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For in it is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

 

[Jordon]

God's moral agents have consciences and those consciences reside in the human heart. Unless God does a supernatural work in a person's heart, no one's conscience will soften or become sensitive toward the Gospel of Truth.

pricked conscience as you know Rufus works for a person before there saved and after, it leads feeling guilty about ones actions, so it can be considered a form of enabling grace, especially in a religious context, because it signals a need for change and prompts spiritual growth. This prick can serve as a loving rebuke from God or others, guiding a person to overcome pride, acknowledge sin, and seek a path toward righteousness, which is enabled by God's strength and help.

Why else Rufus could a pricked conscience be a type of enabling grace
in the bible , a pricked conscience is often described as a gift from God.

The feeling of guilt or unease is meant to make you aware of a sin you are struggling with and to recognize that you need to change.

A pricked conscience can help a person overcome pride and be more receptive to God's guidance and the loving rebuke of others.

Grace, by definition, is an enabling power that helps the recipient to do or be what they otherwise could not. When a pricked conscience leads someone to turn away from sin and towards God, it acts as this enabling power, allowing them to achieve spiritual growth.

 

[Jordon]

I believe a reason some are highly attracted to Calvinism, is because it helped some to stop feeling like no good pieces of garbage.
Because, the concept of total depravity gave them reason to think what they had been living is to be expected.
And, now they could stop hating themselves knowing we are all born depraved. Which is good to know up to a point.

But, then they take it too far, and enter into escapism by hyper ventilating about the sovereignty of God.

It becomes as a mind set of theological fantasy escapism when it comes to unbalanced thinking in regards to the Sovereignty of God.

There is no such thing as a calvinist Calvinism or a Calvinistic nature, it's somebody else wanting a curse to be your curse.

Your the one who's cursed by it as your the one projecting it. Do you understood ?

I hope this pricks your conscious the right way as your conscious has been pricked the wrong way.

 

[Jordon]

And, yet, you were confident to write as if you knew all about me?

oops I just realised after backtracking I posted my reply to the wrong person.

My reply was meant for somebody else, oops a daisy.

I do apologise my conscience has been pricked

 

[rogerg]

So what you are really saying that you had this "feeling" that you "pre-knew" the gospel if and when you supposedly heard it, and therefore concluded that you must have won the "pre-birth sovereign lottery"?

And your views on soteriology are a result of the foregoing?

I am quite sure that this is precisely @Magenta 's testimony as well. Correct?

What do you think @studier @HeIsHere ? Make any sense?

I pre-knew? No. I learned, understood, and believed as a byproduct/result of becoming saved, not beforehand; that is, salvation occurred first, the rest, after and from it.
Given that you disagree, you will need to find another way to reconcile what scripture means when it declares that Jesus Christ alone is THE Savior.

 

[cv5]

I pre-knew? No. I learned, understood, and believed as a byproduct/result of becoming saved, not beforehand; that is, salvation occurred first, the rest, after and from it.
Given that you disagree, you will need to find another way to reconcile what scripture means when it declares that Jesus Christ alone is THE Savior.

To be more precise, you "pre-believed" before you heard and "pre-knew" the gospel to be true if and when you supposedly heard it.

 

[sawdust]

So Christians can live in sin then and still be in good standing with the Lord?

What part of "out of fellowship with the Lord" sounds like standing in good stead?

So this is when the OSAS folks claim the Lord puts cancer on people? Maybe the Lord causes them to have a car wreck and be crippled? Maybe the Lord whacks the guy's wife or his dog or something?

Huh? How on earth did you come up with that? God doesn't need to do anything like you suggest, sin leads to death.

1 John 5:16
If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that.

You know, Adam and Eve were "out of fellowship with the Lord" when they sinned causing them to die spiritually and be separated from the Lord.

But it sounds like in New Testament times we can live in sin and it's all good, right?

Ok, it's obvious you're just going to go all feral like and simply give knee jerk reactions instead of proper discussion. Nothing I said even remotely suggests we can live in sin and it's all good.

Have a nice day

 

[studier]

de-Calvinized

Good phrase.

 

[studier]

So what you are really saying that you had this "feeling" that you "pre-knew" the gospel if and when you supposedly heard it, and therefore concluded that you must have won the "pre-birth sovereign lottery"?

And your views on soteriology are a result of the foregoing?

I am quite sure that this is precisely @Magenta 's testimony as well. Correct?

What do you think @studier @HeIsHere ? Make any sense?

The system didn't flag me on this post. I'm winding down on this thread and all like it for a time at least so I may miss any flags that the system doesn't pick up. PM me any time.

Calvinism doesn't interest me. It's error IMO and going around in circles with its adherents, especially with ones who can't interpret Scripture in context and who function mainly in logically fallacious methods of argumentation to support error, is simply non-productive repetitiveness. If I want to read solid arguments for the tradition or any traditions, there are scholarly articles to read where the pro and con arguments are exegetical and not filled with personal attacks to cover inabilities in reasoning and interpreting Scripture.

IMO, several of the Scriptural arguments for the Reformed tradition have been proven wrong in this thread and in the previous thread that dealt with this. There are a few Scriptures this tradition has in focus that have not been dealt with in any depth here and are tough to interpret but being difficult does not automatically mean they favor any tradition. Reformed adherents here can bring them up and pretend like they prove their system, but they can't actually deal with the language and even prove the verse(s) are actually translated correctly, let alone connect to what they think they do.

As for @rogerg comment re: nothing was needed from him, see the comments just above and all commands in Scripture which are made to the volition of man - both unbelieving and believing man - and including the commands to believe in God's Son Jesus Christ. All are volitionally accountable and responsible to God. No exceptions. This is how our Creator God has established reality.

 

[Magenta]

all commands in Scripture which are made to the volition of man - both unbelieving and believing man

The mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind of the flesh is hostile to God: It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the flesh cannot please God. Romans 8 v 6-8 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 1 Corinthians 2 v 13-14

 

[Jordon]

I find a new good the bad and the ugly theme song

It's amazing

 

[cv5]

The system didn't flag me on this post. I'm winding down on this thread and all like it for a time at least so I may miss any flags that the system doesn't pick up. PM me any time.

Calvinism doesn't interest me. It's error IMO and going around in circles with its adherents, especially with ones who can't interpret Scripture in context and who function mainly in logically fallacious methods of argumentation to support error, is simply non-productive repetitiveness. If I want to read solid arguments for the tradition or any traditions, there are scholarly articles to read where the pro and con arguments are exegetical and not filled with personal attacks to cover inabilities in reasoning and interpreting Scripture.

IMO, several of the Scriptural arguments for the Reformed tradition have been proven wrong in this thread and in the previous thread that dealt with this. There are a few Scriptures this tradition has in focus that have not been dealt with in any depth here and are tough to interpret but being difficult does not automatically mean they favor any tradition. Reformed adherents here can bring them up and pretend like they prove their system, but they can't actually deal with the language and even prove the verse(s) are actually translated correctly, let alone connect to what they think they do.

As for @rogerg comment re: nothing was needed from him, see the comments just above and all commands in Scripture which are made to the volition of man - both unbelieving and believing man - and including the commands to believe in God's Son Jesus Christ. All are volitionally accountable and responsible to God. No exceptions. This is how our Creator God has established reality.

Agree. Human "free will" and volition are baked into the creation cake. I observe that animals also have free will within their own created domain, though sinless. Dogs, cats..... somebody tell me that they do not exhibit free will.

 

[Magenta]

all commands in Scripture which are made to the volition of man - both unbelieving and believing man

All commands in Scripture = everything in Leviticus, also. If you see studier nearby with a fistful of rocks, beware.

 

[rogerg]

To be more precise, you "pre-believed" before you heard and "pre-knew" the gospel to be true if and when you supposedly heard it.

No, I was spiritually oblivious to it - dead spiritually

 

[Magenta]

No, I was spiritually oblivious to it - dead spiritually

It is so odd how these Pelagian heretics and idolatrous blasphemers spin things to suit their vain imaginations.

 

[rogerg]

It is so odd how these Pelagian heretics and idolatrous blasphemers spin things to suit their vain imaginations.

Yup and no matter how many times we repeat it, it falls on deaf ears.