Can a professing, saved believer lose their salvation?

[Bible Highlighter]

Oh sorry, I didn't mean I agreed with him, I was making a parable to indicate I understand what he said.

Understood.

I personally don't know anyone who'd ever believe in a puny god.

Well, in my opinion, Open Theists would fit that bill. For they believe God is like a man who does not know the future.

http://www.gotquestions.org/open-theism.html

Also, those who believe God directly creates evil is also a puny version of God in my opinion because it turns our Lord into a shallow entity.

http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Articles/High_Calvinism.html


...

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Understood.



Well, in my opinion, Open Theists would fit that bill. For they believe God is like a man who does not know the future.

http://www.gotquestions.org/open-theism.html

Also, those who believe God directly creates evil is also a puny version of God in my opinion because it turns our Lord into a shallow entity.

http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Articles/High_Calvinism.html


...

I think I subconsciously avoid conformists, so people would would worship a human being would probably gravitate outside my circles.

I recall looking up the strong's context of translation of the word evil in the KJV as anything from a slight irritation to mass genocide. It's generally a very relative term that gives a lot of room for interpretation. I think there's at least 5 or 6 words in English and only one word used in the OT for "evil" so it can be easy to misinterpret.
.
Though there was one other passage where God was talking to some angels and demons and a demon took the job of putting lies in the mouths of all the prophets. So ... it's hard to say.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Parables start from the creation, and use what is to explain what is obscure

Parables are merely a parallel of the physical with the spiritual. For example: When the Canaanite woman expounds upon Jesus's parable that dogs can eat the crumbs from the master's table (as a physical example), she had faith that God was good and that His mercy was to be for all (and not just excusively for the Jews although they were God's initial chosen people or nation that was to be a light to the world).

In other words, if there was not a set pattern or frame of reference of how we understood the parables within Scripture, then they would just be open to whatever interpretation a person felt it could mean.


...

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Parables are merely a parallel of the physical with the spiritual. For example: When the Canaanite woman expounds upon Jesus's parable that dogs can eat the crumbs from the master's table (as a physical example), she had faith that God was good and that His mercy was to be for all (and not just excusively for the Jews although they were God's initial chosen people or nation that was to be a light to the world).

In other words, if there was not a set pattern or frame of reference of how we understood the parables within Scripture, then they would just be open to whatever interpretation a person felt it could mean.


...

yeah, agree.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I think I subconsciously avoid conformists, so people would would worship a human being would probably gravitate outside my circles.

Yes, I have not personally encountered an Open Theist to my knowledge. I have only discussed (or debated) with them using Scripture on a Christian forum online.

I recall looking up the strong's context of translation of the word evil in the KJV as anything from a slight irritation to mass genocide. It's generally a very relative term that gives a lot of room for interpretation. I think there's at least 5 or 6 words in English and only one word used in the OT for "evil" so it can be easy to misinterpret.

Context is the key. Some folks ignore the surrounding words in relation to the word "evil" in the Bible. They also fail to recognize that words can change with the passage of time, too (and can have a wide variety of meanings, too). But even if there was no passages making them think the wrong thing about God, they would still find a way to paint God in a bad light in some way.

Though there was one other passage where God was talking to some angels and demons and a demon took the job of putting lies in the mouths of all the prophets. So ... it's hard to say.

Well, when a person has gone down the path of the darkside and they do not want to see the light, they are on the side of the devil's kingdom. So it is not wrong for God to place demonic minions who are part of the devil's kingdom to align themselves with humans who are on the same page. For a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. For the Lord our God doing such a thing does not mean God is not good or that He is the author of evil in any way. God is merely managing the evil (Which is temporary) that is already in existence for the greater good.


...

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Yes, I have not personally encountered an Open Theist to my knowledge. I have only discussed (or debated) with them using Scripture on a Christian forum online.



Context is the key. Some folks ignore the surrounding words in relation to the word "evil" in the Bible. They also fail to recognize that words can change with the passage of time, too (and can have a wide variety of meanings, too). But even if there was no passages making them think the wrong thing about God, they would still find a way to paint God in a bad light in some way.



Well, when a person has gone down the path of the darkside and they do not want to see the light, they are on the side of the devil's kingdom. So it is not wrong for God to place demonic minions who are part of the devil's kingdom to align themselves with humans who are on the same page. For a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. So such a thing does not mean God is not good or that He is the author of evil in any way. God is merely managing the evil (Which is temporary) that is already in existence for the greater good.


...

Re: Dark and light separation.

I find it's like a new creation. The dark and light period lasts the longest ... then all the other seven days come to pass. Then the assessment ... then another week.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Re: Dark and light separation.

I find it's like a new creation. The dark and light period lasts the longest ... then all the other seven days come to pass. Then the assessment ... then another week.

The point of the darkness is that God turns every bad or evil or dark thing into something that is good. For example: The death of God the Father's Son (Jesus - who is the second person of the Godhead) was for the good of all of mankind.

But one day in the future, there will be no more evil, darkness, or sin. Only God and His goodness alone (with His good people and His good creation) will reign and exist. For God will be the light thereof and there will be no more darkness.

...

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The point of the darkness is that God turns every bad or evil or dark thing into something that is good. For example: The death of God the Father's Son (Jesus - who is the second person of the Godhead) was for the good of all of mankind.

But one day in the future, there will be no more evil, darkness, or sin. Only God and His goodness alone (with His good people and His good creation) will reign and exist. For God will be the light thereof and there will be no more darkness.

...

I am reminded of
God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Corinthians 5:21

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I am reminded of
God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Corinthians 5:21

Yes, but the blood only applies to us how?

Let's read Scripture.

For it says,

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (1 John 1:7).

...

 

[Geralt]

you did not get the question, what is the reason (not the process) why A would accept the gospel and B would not. The process is the exercise of choice, but the reason you have not said anything. Why did A choose and B did not ?

i'll answer it for you since you have been circular in your arguments and stuck with your almighty free will; this will be my last post in this thread.

if you go to the grocery, why would you choose one brand against another ? obviously because you like it, it is your DESIRE. that is why you chose it. it is NOT the exercise of choice which makes a person choose one from another option; regenerate or not everyone makes choices. BUT he will choose always according to his foremost desire.

so now the question becomes, will you desire something you do not understand ?

i mean look here. im explaining something to you, and you don't like it. you presume you understand what i have written, but im saying you don't really understand what im writing. and that is why you don't like it and argues against it, the reason i take effort to write so you and the others reading this can understand..and hopefully make a (another) choice.

would a caveman value gold more than food when he does not understand its value ? obviously not, he would most likely trade a tasy smelling kentucky fried chicken with his gold.

the bible says,

"both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God." Romans 3:9-11

UNDERSTANDING -> DESIRE -> CHOICE​

the problem of man's will or choice is not about making choices (or the exercise of making a choice- or free will as you like to call it), it is making poor choices. why? because he does NOT UNDERSTAND. Man will never choose or seek what they do not understand. Like a a question with multiple answers a) b) and c); the correct answer is not even listed. because it is hidden, outside his fallen understanding. no one seeks God, they are dead to sin. he may keep on seeking (which obviously the unhindered and unhampered exercise of free will or free choice), but he will not seek/choose God because he cannot choose something outside his option of choices due to lack of understanding.

so here you quote Matthew 23:37 , and you think it is matter of choice. you have written this many many times like its your mission statement in defense of almighty free will. but did you even ask the question, why they wouldn't let christ? obviously you skipped SIN, and its effects. that it blinds them to truth, to christ, to understanding -> so that they would seek christ and choose Him. intheir case, they cannot choose christ, they are deep in sin.

Christ was NOT acknowledging they have a choice and if they could only choose him, Christ was remorse over their sin! and its obvious effect is not the desire to choose christ.

in summary your thread and argument can be wrapped in one conclusion :

why do some who profess go back ?

because they do not understand, therefore it is not their utmost desire, eventually they choose what they desire the most -> to go back to what once they were.

a) IN the believers point of view -> they FALL from grace. This is US looking at THEM.

b) BUT in their point of view, -> THEY ACTUALLY LIKE IT !, it is their strongest desire!, they enjoy it. That is why they chose to go back. This is THEM looking at themselves.

now here is the problem, in your position you think b) defines a christian who lost it.

im telling you they were not, nor ever was a true follower of christ. christ was never the reason they joined the christian membership, it must have been the goodies, the fun and laughter, the privileges, the convenience, etc.. except christ. for when trials and tests come in, it no longer serves them, and now they DESIRE something else.

Unless of course you prefer to be ignorant of what happens when a person is made a new creation, born-again, or born of the spirit ? it is NOT JUST making people able to choose Christ to be saved, it is the holy spirit giving people UNDERSTANDING and CHANGES their DESIRES.

temptation, the world, sufferings, etc.. is still part of the Christian's life or his choices in life, but it is NO LONGER his utmost desire. that is the mark of a born-again believer.

and that is reason why if you keep on persisting your argument that a born of the spirit believer can go back and remain and enjoy his old life, you will always be guilty of blaspheming and insulting the work of the holy spirit.​

People accept or reject the gospel based on their individual free will choice. Most adults in this world have the equal capacity or choice or opportunity to accept or reject the gospel. If this was not so, then Jesus could not have said this...

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God's messengers! How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you wouldn't let me." (Matthew 23:37 NLT).​

But... you....wouldn't....let...me.

Huh!

Very interesting words from our Lord Jesus Christ.

Jesus desired to save Jerusalem or gather them like children and or like a hen seeks to gather it's chicks, but they would not allow Jesus to do so.

So here we see God's will and desire not overthrowing man's will or desire.

...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

you did not get the question, what is the reason (not the process) why A would accept the gospel and B would not. The process is the exercise of choice, but the reason you have not said anything. Why did A choose and B did not ?

i'll answer it for you since you have been circular in your arguments and stuck with your almighty free will; this will be my last post in this thread.

if you go to the grocery, why would you choose one brand against another ? obviously because you like it, it is your DESIRE. that is why you chose it. it is NOT the exercise of choice which makes a person choose one from another option; regenerate or not everyone makes choices. BUT he will choose always according to his foremost desire.

so now the question becomes, will you desire something you do not understand ?

i mean look here. im explaining something to you, and you don't like it. you presume you understand what i have written, but im saying you don't really understand what im writing. and that is why you don't like it and argues against it, the reason i take effort to write so you and the others reading this can understand..and hopefully make a (another) choice.

would a caveman value gold more than food when he does not understand its value ? obviously not, he would most likely trade a tasy smelling kentucky fried chicken with his gold.

the bible says,

"both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God." Romans 3:9-11

UNDERSTANDING -> DESIRE -> CHOICE​

the problem of man's will or choice is not about making choices (or the exercise of making a choice- or free will as you like to call it), it is making poor choices. why? because he does NOT UNDERSTAND. Man will never choose or seek what they do not understand. Like a a question with multiple answers a) b) and c); the correct answer is not even listed. because it is hidden, outside his fallen understanding. no one seeks God, they are dead to sin. he may keep on seeking (which obviously the unhindered and unhampered exercise of free will or free choice), but he will not seek/choose God because he cannot choose something outside his option of choices due to lack of understanding.

so here you quote Matthew 23:37 , and you think it is matter of choice. you have written this many many times like its your mission statement in defense of almighty free will. but did you even ask the question, why they wouldn't let christ? obviously you skipped SIN, and its effects. that it blinds them to truth, to christ, to understanding -> so that they would seek christ and choose Him. intheir case, they cannot choose christ, they are deep in sin.

Christ was NOT acknowledging they have a choice and if they could only choose him, Christ was remorse over their sin! and its obvious effect is not the desire to choose christ.

in summary your thread and argument can be wrapped in one conclusion :

why do some who profess go back ?

because they do not understand, therefore it is not their utmost desire, eventually they choose what they desire the most -> to go back to what once they were.

a) IN the believers point of view -> they FALL from grace. This is US looking at THEM.

b) BUT in their point of view, -> THEY ACTUALLY LIKE IT !, it is their strongest desire!, they enjoy it. That is why they chose to go back. This is THEM looking at themselves.

now here is the problem, in your position you think b) defines a christian who lost it.

im telling you they were not, nor ever was a true follower of christ. christ was never the reason they joined the christian membership, it must have been the goodies, the fun and laughter, the privileges, the convenience, etc.. except christ. for when trials and tests come in, it no longer serves them, and now they DESIRE something else.

Unless of course you prefer to be ignorant of what happens when a person is made a new creation, born-again, or born of the spirit ? it is NOT JUST making people able to choose Christ to be saved, it is the holy spirit giving people UNDERSTANDING and CHANGES their DESIRES.

temptation, the world, sufferings, etc.. is still part of the Christian's life or his choices in life, but it is NO LONGER his utmost desire. that is the mark of a born-again believer.

and that is reason why if you keep on persisting your argument that a born of the spirit believer can go back and remain and enjoy his old life, you will always be guilty of blaspheming and insulting the work of the holy spirit.​

Well, both the Calvinist's interpretation and the interpretation of the Eternal Security Proponent who is a non-Calvinist falsely misunderstand Romans 3 because they are not looking at the Old Testament reference properly to understand what is actually being said. Psalms 14:1 is the type of person who is being spoken of here. It speaks of the fool who says there is no God. This is the colorful language of how the Gentiles as a whole were at one time referred to as. At one time, the Gentiles did not seek after God, etc. However, now that has all changed. Salvation has been received by the Gentiles. One does not need to become a Jew. Both Jews and Gentiles can come to God equally by having the proper faith in Jesus Christ.

As for Eternal Security Proponent who is a non-Calvinist, they interpret Romans 3:10 and Romans 3:23 as saying that all people are sinners (including saints who are supposed to be faithful to their Lord). However, this is a wrong misunderstanding on this verse, though.

For if they believe Romans 3:10 and Romans 3:23 both teach that this is talking to the faithful saint: Then they must also believe that the faithful saint has no understanding and does not seek after God, too. For Romans 3:11 says,

"There is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God."
(Romans 3:11).

In other words, Romans 3:10 is a reference to Psalms 14:1 to the fool who says there is no God (i.e. the Gentiles of the Old Covenant).
Nowhere does Romans 3 suggest that this is referring to the faithful saint in Jesus Christ.
For without holiness, no man shall see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14).
The Bible says, "Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous." (1 John 3:7).
The Bible says, "He that commits sin is of the devil; " (1 John 3:8).
The Bible says, "For everyone that does evil hates the light," (John 3:20).​

As for Calvinist's interpretation of Romans 3:10-11, and Romans 3:23:

Well, they see these verses as teaching that an unbeliever does not have the capacity to come to God on his own power without a regeneration (Which is what I used to believe and what you are trying to push upon me now).

But Scripture has to be read as a whole.

As I stated before, Romans 3:11 is colorful language used to refer to the Gentiles as a whole in Psalms 14. For the Psalm spoke generally of the Gentiles as a fool who says there is no God. In other words, this is the type of person who would be called an "atheist" today. However, this does not mean that all Gentiles in Old Testament history were atheists, though. For we know that the Ninevites had repented of their sins at the preaching of Jonah. We know Rahab and her household had joined the Israelites.

Anyways, your theory for the motivation of why man does not choose God is not Biblical. You are saying that man has no capacity to accept God without a regeneration from the Lord. But what about Adam? What about Lucifer? Did not both Adam and Lucifer act contrary to their good natures and do something sinful and bad? Was Total Depravity applied to them, as well? Surely not. Hence, the huge gaping flaw in your belief system here, my friend. For...

#1. You are not explaining Matthew 23:37. Why? I believe you cannot honestly do so.

#2. God tells Cain in Genesis 4:7 that he has the capacity to do either good or to sin. In other words, God was telling Cain that he had a choice.

#3. In Deuteronomy 30:19, the Israelites were told that life and death were set before them and then they were told to choose life. This would not be possible if what you are teaching here was true.​

As for your question as to why men do good or evil:

You believe men do good because God makes them that way and that men do bad because of Adam's one act of rebellion against God.

While it is true, that Adam's one act of rebellion has effected mankind (on some level) and that men need a spiritual regeneration (or re-birth) so as to be restored back to the good nature that Adam had (who also had a free will choice to choose between good and evil), this does not mean that all unbelievers in existence at this present moment in time right now do not have a free will choice to choose God on their own power or ability. For unbelievers make good and bad choices every day. Granted, the good they choose is not out of any kind of good flowing thru them from the Lord (Which is true good or righteousness), but that does not mean they cannot act on their own ability to repent and accept the Lord of their own choosing. The Fall merely has made mankind inclined to sin; And on their own, they cannot obey God's ways. They need a spiritual regeneration by accepting Christ of their own free will choice.

Okay, so what is my reason for as to why some men accept Christ and why some men reject Christ? Well, first, I believe God created in every person the equal capacity to choose Christ or to reject Him in this life. Why? Because why would God reward some and punish others? Again, we have to look at this as if we were detectives. If what you are saying is true, and God just made some to be saved and others to not be saved, then the Bible would not speak in such a way that the righteous are being rewarded and that the wicked are being punished. It would simply speak in a cold methodical way of how the righteous and the wicked have different destinies. But the Bible does not use such cold and heartless words to describe the fate of the righteous and the wicked.

So then, what is the reason then? Why do people choose to accept and or reject Christ? What is the motivation or root reason? Because that is simply their desire within the frame work of their free will choice. God knew there would be those who would choose the wrong thing (even when they had the capacity to choose the right way). Was this a design flaw within the creation? Surely not. God merely made it possible for man to equally have the capacity to choose Him or to not choose Him.

"So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." --- (Romans 14:12).​

This verse above here does not make any sense in light of Calvinism. Hypothetically speaking: If a person was Totally Depraved at the Judgment (Whereby they are to give an account of themselves to God), they would just tell God that they acted that way because they could not help it. For they will tell God that they are Totally Depraved and that they did not receive a spiritual regeneration from Him (i.e. the Lord). So they would in essence be trying to blame God for their own bad condition (Which is wrong).

Anyways, I will be praying for you, my friend.
May God's love and peace be upon you this fine day.

Sincerely,

Jason.


...

 

[Geralt]

sorry jason, i have read your counter argument, you misinterpreted my arguments like boxing the air, they are so far-fetched. and your interpretations of the verse are so much like how the cults do - grabbing ideas from a different text and force fitting it in another with a splash of imagination. you probably need to be born again, real this time please, and not induced by your almighty free will. ask God about it and He can help and free you from the chain of semi-pelagianism choking you - if the need comes sometime in your life.

i have time and time again wrote that there is no issue about freewill, both regenerate and unregenerate make choices. but then again you stop there, and you keep on going back to your circular argument thinking its an issue about freewill. i have presented the argument the reason behind why people choose what they choose, and still you talk about freewill like a broken record. your almighty freewill has become your own firewall.

ah i will leave you to your cage and wipe the dust from my feet. im off to vacation watch some lovely fireworks in lake geneva switzerland and sing songs from the sound of music ​

Well, both the Calvinist's interpretation and the interpretation of the Eternal Security Proponent who is a non-Calvinist falsely misunderstand Romans 3 because they are not looking at the Old Testament reference properly to understand what is actually being said. Psalms 14:1 is the type of person who is being spoken of here. It speaks of the fool who says there is no God. This is the colorful language of how the Gentiles as a whole were at one time referred to as. At one time, the Gentiles did not seek after God, etc. However, now that has all changed. Salvation has been received by the Gentiles. One does not need to become a Jew. Both Jews and Gentiles can come to God equally by having the proper faith in Jesus Christ.

As for Eternal Security Proponent who is a non-Calvinist, they interpret Romans 3:10 and Romans 3:23 as saying that all people are sinners (including saints who are supposed to be faithful to their Lord). However, this is a wrong misunderstanding on this verse, though.

For if they believe Romans 3:10 and Romans 3:23 both teach that this is talking to the faithful saint: Then they must also believe that the faithful saint has no understanding and does not seek after God, too. For Romans 3:11 says,

"There is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God."
(Romans 3:11).

In other words, Romans 3:10 is a reference to Psalms 14:1 to the fool who says there is no God (i.e. the Gentiles of the Old Covenant).
Nowhere does Romans 3 suggest that this is referring to the faithful saint in Jesus Christ.
For without holiness, no man shall see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14).
The Bible says, "Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous." (1 John 3:7).
The Bible says, "He that commits sin is of the devil; " (1 John 3:8).
The Bible says, "For everyone that does evil hates the light," (John 3:20).​

As for Calvinist's interpretation of Romans 3:10-11, and Romans 3:23:

Well, they see these verses as teaching that an unbeliever does not have the capacity to come to God on his own power without a regeneration (Which is what I used to believe and what you are trying to push upon me now).

But Scripture has to be read as a whole.

As I stated before, Romans 3:11 is colorful language used to refer to the Gentiles as a whole in Psalms 14. For the Psalm spoke generally of the Gentiles as a fool who says there is no God. In other words, this is the type of person who would be called an "atheist" today. However, this does not mean that all Gentiles in Old Testament history were atheists, though. For we know that the Ninevites had repented of their sins at the preaching of Jonah. We know Rahab and her household had joined the Israelites.

Anyways, your theory for the motivation of why man does not choose God is not Biblical. You are saying that man has no capacity to accept God without a regeneration from the Lord. But what about Adam? What about Lucifer? Did not both Adam and Lucifer act contrary to their good natures and do something sinful and bad? Was Total Depravity applied to them, as well? Surely not. Hence, the huge gaping flaw in your belief system here, my friend. For...

#1. You are not explaining Matthew 23:37. Why? I believe you cannot honestly do so.

#2. God tells Cain in Genesis 4:7 that he has the capacity to do either good or to sin. In other words, God was telling Cain that he had a choice.

#3. In Deuteronomy 30:19, the Israelites were told that life and death were set before them and then they were told to choose life. This would not be possible if what you are teaching here was true.​

As for your question as to why men do good or evil:

You believe men do good because God makes them that way and that men do bad because of Adam's one act of rebellion against God.

While it is true, that Adam's one act of rebellion has effected mankind (on some level) and that men need a spiritual regeneration (or re-birth) so as to be restored back to the good nature that Adam had (who also had a free will choice to choose between good and evil), this does not mean that all unbelievers in existence at this present moment in time right now do not have a free will choice to choose God on their own power or ability. For unbelievers make good and bad choices every day. Granted, the good they choose is not out of any kind of good flowing thru them from the Lord (Which is true good or righteousness), but that does not mean they cannot act on their own ability to repent and accept the Lord of their own choosing. The Fall merely has made mankind inclined to sin; And on their own, they cannot obey God's ways. They need a spiritual regeneration by accepting Christ of their own free will choice.

Okay, so what is my reason for as to why some men accept Christ and why some men reject Christ? Well, first, I believe God created in every person the equal capacity to choose Christ or to reject Him in this life. Why? Because why would God reward some and punish others? Again, we have to look at this as if we were detectives. If what you are saying is true, and God just made some to be saved and others to not be saved, then the Bible would not speak in such a way that the righteous are being rewarded and that the wicked are being punished. It would simply speak in a cold methodical way of how the righteous and the wicked have different destinies. But the Bible does not use such cold and heartless words to describe the fate of the righteous and the wicked.

So then, what is the reason then? Why do people choose to accept and or reject Christ? What is the motivation or root reason? Because that is simply their desire within the frame work of their free will choice. God knew there would be those who would choose the wrong thing (even when they had the capacity to choose the right way). Was this a design flaw within the creation? Surely not. God merely made it possible for man to equally have the capacity to choose Him or to not choose Him.

"So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." --- (Romans 14:12).​

This verse above here does not make any sense in light of Calvinism. Hypothetically speaking: If a person was Totally Depraved at the Judgment (Whereby they are to give an account of themselves to God), they would just tell God that they acted that way because they could not help it. For they will tell God that they are Totally Depraved and that they did not receive a spiritual regeneration from Him (i.e. the Lord). So they would in essence be trying to blame God for their own bad condition (Which is wrong).

Anyways, I will be praying for you, my friend.
May God's love and peace be upon you this fine day.

Sincerely,

Jason.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

sorry jason, i have read your counter argument, you misinterpreted my arguments like boxing the air, they are so far-fetched. and your interpretations of the verse are so much like how the cults do - grabbing ideas from a different text and force fitting it in another with a splash of imagination. you probably need to be born again, real this time please, and not induced by your almighty free will. ask God about it and He can help and free you from the chain of semi-pelagianism choking you - if the need comes sometime in your life.

i have time and time again wrote that there is no issue about freewill, both regenerate and unregenerate make choices. but then again you stop there, and you keep on going back to your circular argument thinking its an issue about freewill. i have presented the argument the reason behind why people choose what they choose, and still you talk about freewill like a broken record. your almighty freewill has become your own firewall.

ah i will leave you to your cage and wipe the dust from my feet. im off to vacation watch some lovely fireworks in lake geneva switzerland and sing songs from the sound of music ​

If you do not want to explain the verses I brought up and have an intelligent conversation involving the Bible, then just say so. However, insulting me does not help to prove your argument is true in any way but it actually weakens it, my friend. In any event, whenever you are free to resume this conversation again, please do not do so unless you actually address the verses I brought up using the context and cross references.

Anyways, have a good time in Lake Geneva.
May God protect you and may He fill you with love and peace as you are there.


...