Debate Page 5

______
ROBERT 4.30.2011 1:20AM
New topic: “God’s Will / Man’s Will”

Phil's premise and primary agenda is the Calvinistic doctrine of God's sovereignty and predestination of all human salvation.  He judges churches based on their falling short of accepting that doctrine, and even wields the doctrine to interpret many scriptures.  Here is my response:

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

One can concede that God causes every detail of human history from sin to salvation and still believe that God truly judges people based on their choices, for better or worse.

Regardless of what goes on behind the scenes, the Bible overwhelmingly presents a God who offers life or death and that he stands ready and willing to save people if and only if they make the right choice. This is not even to say that God enables men to make such a choice. This is only to say that God's judgment will, in fact, be determined based on that choice, regardless of whether God caused that choice or not. This is in stark contrast with the belief that saving faith comes sufficiently from hearing the Bible read out loud or that it otherwise “just happens” to people. Faith comes by hearing, but it is the doers who will be justified (Romans 2:13; James 1:22).

I will address John 1:10-13 first, along with other John texts. I hope we can devote one message thread to John's Gospel and other threads to other books to facilitate organization.

But first, I simply must clear the air about one thing you have written. You have said numerous times that Arminians “trust in their free will to save them.” No Arminian worthy of the name does this, and any Calvinist with any respect for truth should can admit this. Arminians trust in Jesus based on his gracious gospel. It's not about our will, it's about God's will. It's about God's sure willingness to save us without burdening us beyond what we can bear, whether by doubts about predestination or by fears about legalism. To judge Arminianism to be guilty of trusting in free will is baseless and inexcusable.

All these topics will receive biblical support in due course. This is only an introduction. Now, I will address John 1:10-13.

_______

ROBERT 4.30.2011 8:54AM

“God‘s Will / Man’s Will,” continued.

Phil has asserted John 1:13 as proving that salvation is not of "man's will" since his first letter to me.  Here is my response:

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

John 1:10 says:

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

I once wrote a book called Rediscovering John 3:16, where I made use of these verses.

Verse 11 says that Jesus came to “his own,” and “his own received him not.” It kinda looks like he came to save them, and they could have and should have responded, but they rejected him. It is either that or else he just came to present them a gospel that we wouldn't let them receive in order to convict them of guilt and so be judged for it. But it looks kinda like he came to save some that wouldn't be saved, for what it's worth.

Verse 10, especially in light of verse 11, vaguely suggests the same thing about “the world” that he made.

Verse 12 tells us what makes the difference between the saved and the unsaved: “he gave the power to become sons of God” to “as many as received him...to them that belive on his name.” Regardless of how people end up interpreting their past conversion experience, their choice to believe proved to be decisive in God's giving of the power to become sons of God. This is the practical truth.

Verse 13 spells out both how special salvation is (that we are born of God) and that salvation is not inherited. It does not come from your blood or racial ancestry, as some Jews were hoping. It does not come from the will of the flesh or the will of man because your daddy can only beget you in the flesh (“aner” is a distinctly male term meaning “male, husband, or betrothed or future husband”). It does not come because you're more special than others. Believers are born of God regardless of their human origins; they are born of God through receiving Christ, as specified in verse 12.

There is no reason to interpret “will of man” to mean mankind's free will to convert or not. It need only refer to human desire to give life, which is immediately contrasted with God's desire to give a new and better life, something that not just for special people but for everyone who will simply receive it, as verse 12 clarifies.

Assurance of salvation is priceless. For Arminians and many Calvinists, it is based on solid Bible promises. More to come.

_______

ROBERT 4.30.2011 9:15AM

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Ugh, I meant "John 1:10-13 says:" … Thanks.

_______

PHIL 4.30.2011 11:21AM

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

I need to go for the day, and I would like to have dialogue on this matter. I was free will and I had plenty of preachers tell me if I excepted Christ as my Savior then I was saved. Period. They even told me if I pray the sinners prayer over I was crucifying Christ all over again and that I should not keep praying for mercy.

I grew up a southern baptist and know very well what they teach. Your own words have said we have a choice. Mans Choice, Mans free will to choose. I am not adding anything here am I?

John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordainded you that ye should go and bring forth fruit....

God ordained us that we should bring forth fruit. He first loved us, He justifiys us, He chooses us not the other way that is we have a choice if we will be born again, we will have a resurected soul.

Please find me one verse in the bible that says we have a choice, or free will. It is not found in the bible. We have to interpert a verse and say that is what it actually means. God does speak in parables, but it is a test for mankind to have his own will or if God inclines our hearts to seek him seeking us.

I know free will christians truely believe they are saved by thier choice, by what their heart is and and the sinners prayer. But instead of staying with the milk of the gospel they should move on to meat. But only God can shape one vessel to honor and another to dishonor. THat dishonor is mans free will. It is Gods will in Pharaoh or Pharaoh left to his own free will which is depravity in every human being. Only God can make ones heart to seek him, It is 100% the work of Christ and no part of mans will.

We have free will to eat, dress and play, but not when it comes to being Born again. Man cannot respond to God with any action that God would forgive him of his sin, therefore from the foundation of the world, Christ is the Lamb of God. God made a way to save a people for himself and to save his elected ones.

Which is why we believe limited atonement, an d that Christ did not die for everyone who ever lived but for those who the Father gave to Jesus Christ.

John 6:37-40 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

I read this as ALL that the Father gives, you will read this of their free will they will come to me, him that cometh to me.

But this is a direct contradiction of Romans 3:10-11 There is none that seeketh after God. We cannot have contradictions if we are finding truth in Gods word, we must continue our home work and search the word of God.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him..... You see, this harmonizes with predestination, mans free will or mans choice does not.

_______

ROBERT 4.30.2011 5:27PM

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

You said, “Your own words have said we have a choice. Mans Choice, Mans free will to choose. I am not adding anything here am I?”

Actually, I took great pains to distinguish between (1) being responsible to be found making the right choice, and (2) actually having an ability to make such a choice for ourselves. And I only seek to persuade you of the first one (1).

The first claim (Agenda 1, as it were) totally allows God to determine man's choices and, more importantly, emphasizes a God-given responsibility to make the right choice and the fact that God judges those choices accordingly, for better or worse.

The second claim (Agenda 2) would simply claim that we, ourselves, get to make that choice, and not have God make it for us. ((I am not concerned to argue for this (Agenda 2), though I might sometimes offer defenses for it, but with admissions along the way that they are not always compelling.))

I only emphasize the first one, that we are responsible to make the right choice. I practically conceded that God controls all of our choices in the first sentence. In fact I even contemplated beginning that message with: “I am going to temporarily become a Calvinist for the sake of this discussion. I am a Calvinist now!” But I thought that might be a bit much.

So a simple, repetitive answer would be: “I'm not saying we HAVE a choice, I'm saying we have to MAKE a choice.” ((I personally believe that we actually have one, but I'll probably never argue for it as if it were important)). I'm only attempting to prove the first point above, ultimately for the sake of our assurance of salvation. There is a connection, and it will be made very soon.))

You asserted:

“John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”

And that is why I said some time ago that Calvinists have legs to stand on. But even so, that does not change the fact that Jesus' audience was required to choose to believe in him in order to receive eternal life (verses 47, 50, 54, 56) – even if God secretly made those choices for them. This strongly reaffirms agenda 1 above: destiny aside, choices must be made.

((If I were asked to come up with a “way out” for Arminianism in the face of John 6:376 and a case for choice itself, there would be some possibilities.

(A) It could be that “all that the Father gives him" were given because they were ready to believe. I know it doesn't say that there, but it does at least square decently with what it says in John 7:17: “If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.” Maybe the Father gave them to Jesus because they chose to do God's will.

(B) Another possibility is that “those that the Father gives him” is a figure of pious speech not meant to be taken literally. The Father certainly planted seeds and drew them. He gets all the credit for getting sinners to Christ, so why hold back on recognizing him as doing it deterministically, even if it is slight, pious overkill?

(C) Yet another possibility is that is not about salvation. That would be hard to harmonize with verse 39, but verse 70 kind of throws a wrench in to Calvinism by affirming that Jesus chose 12, but one of them was a devil anyway. How could “chosen” fail to deliver?

These “ways out” are not meant to serve as strong arguments, and they would help the second agenda above, the one about actual choice, which, again, I am not interested in pushing on you. The only reason I came up with “ways out” was that we both need to come up with “ways out” when challenged by each others strong verses, because failure to do so is just failure to accept all scripture. We need to assert our strong verses and hope that whatever they teach about God will get us through our opponent's strong verses – with a little help from our “ways out.” Whoever gives the lamest “ways out” is probably wrong. Say what you will about mine above. The day is coming when you will have to give some “ways out” of your own, and that day is almost here.))

You also asserted:

“John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him..... You see, this harmonizes with predestination, mans free will or mans choice does not.”

The drawing is God's, but the crucial result is that they come to Jesus. That reaffirms Agenda 1.

((As for a “way out,” the word “compel” does not equal the word “coerce.” Without God's drawing, pulling, compelling, we wouldn't have what it took to even seek him. But that does not mean we don't learn how right he is and start getting with the program and start walking in the direction he is leading.))

OK, this message is so long and I'm in a hurry, so I'm going to wait to write any more. Be well.

-Robert

_______

PHIL 4.30.2011 7:04PM

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Being responsible to make the right choice, is still mans will to choose no matter how we word it. I do see you are trying to be faithful to Gods word that he is in control but the bottom line is most churches want assurance and by their actions they feel best assured.

I find no assurrance by my repenting, believing nor by my good works nor by my faith. I find assurance in Jesus died for me, He inclines my heart to believe ( not by my faith in him but by the Faith of Christ Gal 2:16)

Here is the most important verse I could reply to mans responsability in choosing.

Romans 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

You see Robert man will always want to add his (responability, choice, his faith, his desire, his believing) will into salvation based on a few verses God puts in the bible. Its the same reason so many try and say Jesus is not God, even many who are not Jehovah Wittnesess, God put the test in the bible, Jesus prayed to His Father, so they get hung up on , How can Jesus be Jehovah if he prays to Jehovah.

But Romans 9:19 God knows and responds to those who say if God does 100% the work and we have no will to be saved , then we are zobies, robots and such. But God goes on to say, But who are thou that repliest against God.

We are but dirt, we are as dead men until God gives us eternal life. This is why God said let the dead bury the dead. Let the blind lead the blind.

God is so much involved and in control that the very hairs of our head are numbered.

The very reason we are here is that God will be glorified throughout eternity for his grace and mercy. We all 100% desesrve death. The mercy of God is that He chose some to be with him in eternity when they did not deserve it. I cannot try and add to his saving work my responsibility in choosing him. Yes we have resposibililty to be obedient or God will chastize us as a son. But we have no responsibility in choosing God at any time.

In fact nearly all those saved do not even know when God saved sthem because God does the saving and afterward we find out we have a desire to believe in him. Believing and excepting him comes after salvation. God Bless. Please ponder on Romans 9:19

_______

ROBERT 5.02.2011 12:53AM

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

I forgot to respond to a pair of your assertions from two messages ago, so I'll do that before responding to your latest message.

And unfortunately, I have two long responses for you. I regret piling so much on you all at once, but if I were to send it in smaller pieces over time then our memory of current challenges might fade or something. Plus, most of this is in response to what you wrote anyway. So take your time processing this.

Two messages ago you asserted:

“John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you that ye should go and bring forth fruit....”

They may be “chosen” to personal salvation or to an apostolic purpose (John 6:70). They may be “chosen to the exclusion of others” or simply “accepted by God.” They may be chosen from the creation of the world (Eph. 1) or chosen depending on their acceptance of Christ (Matt. 22:3, 14). The John 15 audience is saved, “already clean by the word Jesus has spoken to them” (verse 3). Yet they still have a responsibility to “remain in him” (verses 2, 4, 6, 9), which only saved people could do anyway. The consequences of “remaining in Christ” could be temporal (verses 9, 11, 16) or eternal (verses 2, 6). But even the chosen ones must remain in Christ, and they are told what happens if they don't (verses 2, 6).

Now, I understand that John 15:16 feels more Calvinistic than Arminian; but John 15:1-9 feels Arminian without question. So it is not unthinkable for Jesus to be simply affirming them as “loved and accepted” in an exaggerated way. Just as Christians are the true “Jews” and have the true “circumcision” (Romans 2:29; Phil. 3:3), so also Christians are the true “chosen.” The Jews thought they were “the chosen” by virtue of their blood and parentage and a few rituals. They were eager to be the recipients of God's favoritism. Jesus is letting believers know that things are not so. The self-righteous Jews are not "the chosen," you are.

You also wrote:

“Which is why we believe limited atonement, and that Christ did not die for everyone who ever lived but for those who the Father gave to Jesus Christ.”

Calvinists are divided over the doctrine of Limited Atonement, while all Arminians reject it. And there are lots of biblical reasons for it.

John 3:16 connects God's love for “the world” with the sending of his Son. This already looks like atonement for “the world.” It also connects this atonement with a purpose that “whoever believes” should be saved. “Whoever believes” appears to be a lesser number than “the world.” Why is it less? It is because God apparently values our choice, as indicated by the phrase “whoever believes.” But at the same time, it is an open-ended term, desiring to include “the world,” as we shall see in the next verse.

John 3:17 follows up with Jesus coming into “the world” not to judge “the world” but to save “the world.” This further confirms that desirable result of this coming to die was that “the world should be saved." The 'just' result was that “whoever believes” would be saved (3:16), but the 'desired' result was that “the world” should be saved (3:17). “The world” in verse 17 parallels “whoever believes” in verse 16 and confirms its unlimited scope.

John 3:18 speaks unquestionably about choice and consequences. More on that later.

John 3:19 echoes John 1:10-13 by saying: “This is the verdict [[“judgment,” sometimes “condemnation”]]: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil” (NIV). God is not blaming them for rejecting a Savior who came only for other people. God is blaming them for rejecting a Savior who came for them. God is not blaming them because they weren't elect but because their deeds were evil. This is the biblical pattern from beginning to end.

John 12:46-47 is one of the best. This passage almost quotes John 3:16-17. But John 12:47 takes “the world” and the atonement to new levels of clarity. “And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.” There's that “world” again, the one Jesus “came not to judge but to save.” But here it includes the “man who hears his words and does not believe.” That's what the “for” is there for: “I do not judge 'him,' FOR I did not come do judge 'the world,' but to save 'the world'.” The “for” is the logical connection between the man and the world. Jesus doesn't judge 'him' because he didn't come to judge 'the world' but to save 'the world.'

Jesus came to save the man who hears and rejects him!

A representative of Alpha and Omega Ministries (strong Calvinists who love Limited Atonement) argued against this, claiming that while the 'for' does equate the man who rejects Jesus with the first “world” of 12:47, the second “world” is nevertheless free to be essentially the “world of the elect.” So basically Jesus “came not to judge the world of the UNELECT, but so save the world of the ELECT.” I think this “way out” is lamer than anything I've come up with elsewhere. The verse could have just as easily said, “not to judge the world but to save IT.” It should be that obvious that they are the same world. I think their theology got in the way

John 5:34 does much the same thing as 12:47. In speaking to stubborn Pharisees, Jesus says, “...but these things I say, that ye might be saved.” He's not messing around when he says “might be saved.” It's the “hina” clause plus subjuctive – a Greek thing I learned from Alpha and Omega Ministries as they discussed John 3:17 and how it indicates a definite divine intention that the world (of the elect, of course) literally “SHOULD be saved.” It also appears in John 12:47. Here in John 5:34 Jesus came “in order that” these Pharisees “should be saved.” But we also know how that turned out (John 5:47).

2 Peter 2:1 speaks of false teachers “even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring[ing] upon themselves swift destruction.” One representative at Alpha and Omega tried to explain this to me by admitting that Christ really “bought” them in a sense, but not in atonement, but rather he only bought them as slaves, so that they are obligated to believe and serve Christ, while Christ himself is not even interested in saving them. How does that make any sense?

Theology and bias must not blind us from the good news of scripture. Many Calvinists believe that Limited Atonement just isn't biblical. Likewise Augustine and Luther. In fact, Calvin's comments on John 3:16 deserve special consideration:

“Although God sent His Son to die for the whole world and offers pardon and eternal life to all who should believe in Him, if he had done so without making effectual provision for the reception of Him by electing certain people to salvation, what would have been the consequence? Not one of the human race, you may say, would have been saved, and so Christ would have died in vain.”

(Found in John MacArthur [Calvinist!], “The God Who Loves” (2001), pg. 193 (appendix; originally a letter from Andrew Fuller, late 1700's)

According to Calvin, Jesus died for “the whole world” (like in 1 John 2:2). If not for Calvin's election completing the circuit to get people saved, “Christ would have died in vain” for anyone who didn't get saved. That has been the belief of all churches since the beginning until Calvin's followers invented Limited Atonement.

There is so much more, but it is not needed. I would like a response to these verses above (that does not include commentators' comments; those are optional.) If your response must be limited, please at least respond to these three: John 12:47 (he “came to save” the “man”/”world” who rejects him); John 5:34 (he “came to save” Pharisees who wouldn't believe in him); and 2 Peter 2:1 (he “bought” those who brought “destruction” on themselves).

_______

ROBERT 5.02.2011 1:09AM

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

In the most recent message you wrote:

“Being responsible to make the right choice, is still mans will to choose no matter how we word it.”

Very well, I will accept that. But I think you are making this easier for me that I had wished for, because you seem to be saying that our choice cannot be involved at all in our getting saved, not even a merely perceived choice that is secretly directed by God.

And there are not just a few verses God puts in the bible” but a series of scriptural headaches for anyone who rejects God's apparent system of choice and consequences.

Acts 16:30-31 “What must I do to be saved? Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.” Contrast this with Harold Camping's teaching: [Q] “What can I do to become saved?” [A] “There is nothing you can do to get yourself saved” (“Does God Love You,” page 4). The Bible, however, says, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:30-31). If God himself tells us to believe in order to be saved, then it is automatically our God-given duty and right to do just that. Therefore it cannot be self-righteousness or “robbing God” to choose to receive him while God is trying to give us a salvation that hangs on that choice. “Robbing God” is an accusation based on runaway theology.

Acts 5:32 says that Holy Spirit is given to “those who obey him.” Think about that. Getting saved involved choice.

Deut. 30:19 presents God passionately teaching that life and death hang on their choice: “This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.” Consequences really do depend on choice, for death...or even for life.

Genesis 2:17 and that warning against eating the fruit made them responsible to choose, and we know the consequences. They had a free will ability to eat it, and presumably they had a free will ability not to.

Genesis 4:7 “If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it” (NASB). That's responsibility. God recognized his option not to kill Abel.

Acts 2:40 “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation” (NIV). This is over the top rope! There is simply no other way to explain it. They asked, “What shall we do?” (verse 37), and there was something to do: Respond! Receive Christ!. I am aware that it involved baptism this time, and that the Church of Christ exploits this for their doctrines. But I can say without a doubt that Church of Christ has better legs to stand on than theologians who claim that Peter's audience was somehow saved already back in verse 37 when they were “pricked in their heart.” Theological bias ruins understanding of scripture.

Much more can be said about God's view on our responsibility and God's response to it (Luke 13:34-35; 19:41-44; Romans 9:32; 10:21; it just doesn't end).

You also asserted:

“...most churches want assurance and by their actions they feel best assured.

"I find no assurrance by my repenting, believing nor by my good works nor by my faith. I find assurance in Jesus died for me, He inclines my heart to believe ( not by my faith in him but by the Faith of Christ Gal 2:16)”

True, most churches want assurance. There is no virtue in denying oneself assurance. While repenting and believing don't always work magic on our emotions, there are biblical recipes for rescuing ourselves from doubt and giving us assurance of the salvation that we believe we already have in Christ. We can gain this assurance by doing various things. If we confess our sins (and, of course, trust his promise of mercy) we know we're forgiven (1 John 1:9). By loving our brethren “we know that we belong to the truth” and also “set our hearts at rest in his presence whenever our hearts condemn us” (1 John 3:18-20). God wants us to have assurance. But he does not give it out to those who only hear a message, or feel a feeling, and suppose that it's all been taken care of.

Jesus died for you? How do you know? Is it because he “inclines your heart to believe?” Is it because you “find out you have a desire to believe in him”? That is not biblical, and no theology can excuse a person from their God-given responsibility to go beyond the “pricking of the heart” (Acts 2:37) and choose to receive Christ already (Acts 2:40).

It also raised two questions: (1) Where does that leave people who stay in “the churches” who have the same desire to believe? Doesn't it prove that they, too, are saved? And (2) Why do you still pray for mercy? What good will that do for someone who “finds assurance in Jesus died for me”? Is it possible you are not completely sure and are therefore jumping through the hoops of predestination just to be safe? Or does it just make you feel better to keep God's commands? (It should by the way (1 John 2:3))

You also said:

“Here is the most important verse I could reply to mans responsability in choosing.

Romans 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?”

and

“But Romans 9:19 God knows and responds to those who say if God does 100% the work and we have no will to be saved , then we are zobies, robots and such. But God goes on to say, But who are thou that repliest against God.”

God controls a lot in Romans 9. But what is he controlling, and why? Is he controlling the salvation of individuals, or is he simply determining that the Jewish nation should not be God's true people and place of salvation, but rather that the church should be? The second has much to support it throughout Romans 9-11, especially 11:28-32, where God has not abandoned the Jews but wants to save them, and is able to save them (11:23).

Romans 9:19 has a man wanting man's way, but God won't budge. It does not mention salvation or individuals, though individuals are used as argumentative examples. But the point is about the nation (9:1-5, 30-33; 11:1-2, 28). And in spite of all the talk of zombies, the Jews who reject Jesus are still credited with their failure (as individuals, perhaps?) (9:32; 10:21), and can still be saved (as individuals?) (11:23). God's goal is for all who sinned to be saved (whenever possible) (11:32). And who can forget the most practical verses in the Bible about how justification and salvation are a guaranteed result for individuals of simple faith and confession (10:9-10)?

This may not be that five year old's interpretation, but neither is yours, at least not of all that is in Romans 9-11. The evidence is mixed. I wish God wouldn't do that, but that's what we have to work with.

But again, as I've said in earlier writings, even if I concede that all this mind-control concerns individual salvation, it would still be an incomplete salvation without taking people through the hoops of human choice. None of Romans 9 dismisses people from the responsibility at least to pretend to choose Jesus with the hope of getting saved. The Bible seems to teach that we convert like Arminians; it even seems to require it. We can believe in predestination all we want after converting.

_______

PHIL 5.03.2011 10:35PM

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

In verse 11 Jesus came to "his own," and "his own received him not" you are saying He came to save them but they rejected him. Yes this is true, but 100% of us will reject him. THats it, there is none that seeketh God Romans 3:10.... you see, you are trying to make the case that they have a choice in the matter to be saved or not. NONE SEEKETH AFTER GOD. therefore God tells us , You will say God is unfair for who has resisted his will then, Romans 9:19

Your premise is man has a choice, what is that choice? Its our free will to chose or exept him.

I have a premise that we are all born in sin, rebelous and none will seek him, so if God wants to have a people for himself, He has to save us or no one will be saved on earth. We will all perish.

Either God saves us as he called the diciples and chose them and likewise he chose the rest, even before they were born. Its like a lottery, we can not find anything in our words, life, will, works, prayers that will cause God to save us. If we are saved, it is Gods mercy and we dont deserve it. To add choice is to add something we do and it robs God of His 100% work to save us.

_______

PHIL 5.03.2011 11:05PM

Asserting or reasserting John 17:9; Romans 3:10-11; 1 Thessalonians 1:3; Ephesians 2:8; and Galatians 2:16 against all human involvement in receiving salvation

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

When you say God will to save anyone, all sinners. If it was Gods will to save everyone he would save everyone. He is God.

As for John 3:16 whosoever does not mean anyone on earth, for there are none that seekth after God and Romans 3:10 contradict this verse if we are able to seek God in a saving faith.

John 17:9 I PRAY FOR THEM; I PRAY NOT FOR THE WORLD, BUT FOR THEM WHICH THOU HAST GIVEN ME, FOR THEY ARE THINE.

Here again in context those who are in view are those who are given to Jesus Christ from God the Father before the foundation of the world.

So those whosoever believeth are those who God gave to Jesus Christ.

The bible would be full of contradictions if our choice was involved or our responsibility in making the right choice.

Jesus said , I stand at the door and knock, He who hears my voice and opens the door I will come in and sup with him.

God always gives us clues to his soverignty, here is the word "Hear his voice" who can hear? No one unless God gives us ears to hear.

Remeber how many times we read , To he that hath ears to hear, let him hear. THat is with spriritual ears that only God can give us.

Whosoever believeth in John 3:16, who can believeth? NONE. Believeth is a pronoun of the verb faith.

I Thes 1:3 Rembering without ceasing your work of faith....Our faith is a work we do. So in Eph 2:8 we are saved by grace through faith that not of yourselves..... It is not our faith at all.

The churches have failed once again, Galations 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.

You see Robert, the church has taught you that you have faith that can make the right choice, though a man can live a clean moral life, yet he can still be under the wrath of God even though he truely belives he has become saved, by his responsability and his own faith in living a clean lifestyle. So we have mormans and others as a good example of responsibility to live a moral lifestyle yet it does not save them. Only God can give us a new heart, make us born again, give us a resurected soul. It has nothing to do with our choice and responsibility, those verses are a test for us do we trsut God is in control and makes the decisions or do we make the decision? I trust Gods decision. God bless!

_______

Discussion continues on 

Debate Page 6