John 3:14-16 teaches that Christ died for everyone

[Hammster]

Right. No "real choice" is unwilling. Clearly.

Unwilling IS a choice.

 

[FreeGrace2]

No! Paul said that one plants, another waters, but GOD gives the increase.

Well, you surely missed the point I was saying:

Then he has no freedom to believe, since he has no ability to believe. But the whole thrust of the Bible is to get people to believe, so your theology goes dead against the Bible's whole thrust.

You are right that Paul had no power to regenerate. But he had no power to persuade sinners to believe either. That also is the Holy Spirit's work. So your argument fails.

How so, since he worked very hard to persuade people. That is what you are ignoring. So, you don't have an argument.

And don't even think about using Paul's words "we persuade men" as a proof text. Paul was NOT saying that the apostolic company persuaded the unsaved to believe. He was speaking to Christians regarding Christ's displeasure toward the bad choices they make "in the body" (2 Corinthians 5:9-11).

Let's consider Acts 26:28
Agrippa replied to Paul, “In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian.”

Acts 28:23
When they had set a day for Paul, they came to him at his lodging in large numbers; and he was explaining to them by solemnly testifying about the kingdom of God and trying to persuade them concerning Jesus, from both the Law of Moses and from the Prophets, from morning until evening.

So, yes, I DO think about using the word "persuade". Paul DID "try to persuade" Jews "concerning Jesus", and King Agrippa clearly believed that Paul was trying to persuade him.

So you are wrong. I know what the Bible says.

 

[FreeGrace2]

No one would choose what they hate. I'm glad you finally are getting it.

So why aren't you getting it about the fact that unwillingness removes any concept of choice?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Wrong! The reason they don't have the desire is because they were born in sin.

Right, so there is no real choice then. Thanks.

Learn the basics.

I did. you should.

 

[Hammster]

So why aren't you getting it about the fact that unwillingness removes any concept of choice?

Unwilling. Not willing. It's a choice. You are confusing willingness with ability. Still.

 

[nobdysfool]

There is no difference whatsoever in what I said and what you just said. LOL

Actually, there is a BIG difference between CANNOT, and WILL NOT. Sorry you apparently don't want to see it.

I've not brought up anything what man chooses. I've been focused on what Calvinism teaches, that God does all the choosing.

Apparently it hasn't dawned on you yet that man's choice is ALWAYS subservient to God's choice.

Yes, He did. 1 Cor 1:21 says He is well pleased (He chooses what pleases Him) to save those who believe.

Which describes the means through which He saves. He set it up this way, so of course it pleases Him to do so. But you are assuming things that are not actually said here. You are assuming that man's action causes God to save him, when actually it's the reverse, that God causes the man to believe (via regenerating him unto belief of the truth), and it pleases Him to save that man.

You have really missed the whole point. From your opening statement in this post, you said: "Calvinism teaches that unless God has chosen them they WILL NOT believe." So HOW can man be held responsible SINCE God does the choosing? You have not answered THAT question. I don't believe you CAN.

Because it's a bogus question. Underlying your question is the clear belief that unless God gives man a "fair chance", He has done an in justice to those He doesn't choose to save. That's where that stupid "excuse" idea comes from. You think that God "owes" man a "fair chance" in order to be able to hold man responsible. Deny it all you want, logically that's the only place your faulty theology can end up, when one connects the dots.

No, God shot him in the foot, so to speak, because He didn't choose them. Or maybe in the head. Yeah, that sounds much better.

Seriously? If you don't want to address a point I made, just don't say anything, rather than this offensive twisting of things.

I believe you are talking out of both sides of your mouth, so to speak. You and others have said that unregenerate man can only choose bad. So, it isn't really a choice at all, since there's no other options for him to choose from.

And I believe your only reason for being here is to bait and goad, and antagonize Calvinists, and I think there are people behind the scenes feeding you and advising you. we've seen their trolling posts here, hinting at their support, and connecting you with other former posters who have acted just like you, and have been banned. In fact, they are probably some of the trolls.

As for the choice question which so consumes you. Even if they can only choose "bad", then have a choice of what kind of "bad" they want, so they still have real choices. Choice is not just between good and evil, or it isn't a real choice. That's very faulty reasoning on your part.

"I just did, and yes, you were given wrong information, or it could be that you didn't understand what you were given, and have been jumping to wrong conclusions, as you are so quick to point out with regard to how we have perceived what you've been saying is your belief. At least you have finally allowed for the fact that you could have been given wrong info. That's a step."

Well, the only problem is that ALL the information I've been given on this forum has been from Calvinists. So I suggest you have a pow wow or something with them and figure out who's passing out such bad information. ]

You know, we're all big boys and girls here, and I know that you want to believe that Calvinists all march in lock-step, and goose-step in unison to "Der Fuhrer", "Herr Calvin". We all actually think for ourselves, and don't always agree on every last little point of doctrine. Your problem is that you try to apply what one person may have told you (which you may not have even understood, or it wasn't correct), to everyone here, and we keep telling you you're wrong, which sends you into tirades against Calvinism out of frustration, I would assume. You don't have good information to begin with, and apparently you don't want to update it, because you've refused every attempt to do so. That's not the fault of Calvinism.

This is what I said:

I've given plenty of opportunity to find ANY verse that indicates what you claim is true. I haven't demanded any specific wording. But none of the verses you or others have given say, indicate, or suggest that regeneration precedes faith. I have no idea why you think they do, because none of them do.

You keep forgetting to add the obvious disclaimer: In My Opinion.

That's pretty easy to prove from Scripture. I'm surprised that you aren't aware of the verse. 2 Cor 13:14

I am very aware of it, and I object to your subtle hinting that I am unaware of Scriptures. Please, grow up!

The problem is that there are no verses at all that indicate what you claim.

Actually there are. Sorry you refuse to see them.

I've looked very closely and find verses that actually SAY the opposite of what you claim. Which is why I post here.

And we know that there are many who search through the scriptures to find what they want to find, and then claim that "the bible agrees with me!" My Grandfather used to quote scriptures to the Jehovah's Witnesses when they showed up. He would quote 3 scriptures, "Judas hanged himself". "Go thou, and do likewise", "What thou doest, do quickly". Now obviously, those scriptures were taken out of context, and he used them in a way that was not their original intent, but he was making a point to the JW's which was that anyone can quote scriptures in such a way as to prove anything they want to prove. It applies here as well.

You don't have to be condescending. I'd suggest the same thing to you.

No condescension intended. Just pointing out that the Scriptures are deeper than many realize.

I think you may be quite naive. There are scholars with impeccable credentials that disagree strongly with Calvinism, so your claim is moot.

Naive? Is that really necessary? Can't you speak to anyone without trying to belittle them? You do not elevate yourself, by belittling others. The exact opposite happens.

A true scholar sets aside his presuppositions, as much as possible, and will parse the words on what they actually say, apart from whether it fits with their favorite flavor of theology. Many aren't quite so honest.

Someone on this forum has been arguing that Cornelius was regenerated WAY before Peter came to him. Do you believe that?

A deflection, showing that you can';t feature that Calvinists may not all agree on some points, such as this one. What I believe is irrelevant. Deal with what I did say, not what you want to imagine I believe.

Seriously? What on earth for? I'm not interested in bombs, but the Bible. If you are interested in bombs, you could google it.

It was an example, a way of showing the principle and idea behind it. Apparently you aren't able to think in those terms. You obviously missed my point, but then again, you've missed a lot of points.

But you just can't prove it from Scripture. Which is my point.

Correction: "You can't prove it in a way that I will accept from scripture."

We can and we have proven our points from scripture, your refusal to accept notwithstanding. QED

 

[guuila]

The point of Calvinism is that if you haven't been chosen, then you can't go to heaven, you can't believe.

The natural person thinks the Gospel is foolish. So yeah, I guess as long as a person thinks Jesus is stupid, they can't love Jesus.

And that choosing occurred before the world began, so why bother? Everything's already been chosen.

What kind of theology is that? Not Biblical, for sure.

Why do you pray for a person's salvation? If they're not going to believe, God already knows it right? So why pray about it?

 

[guuila]

Right. No "real choice" is unwilling. Clearly.

They're willingly unwilling.

 

[crimsonleaf]

You have misunderstood me. I never said their faith was the cause of their salvation. I SAID God chose to save those who believe. Do you see the difference?

I see the difference. I also see that the text doesn't say that they were chosen because they believed. Please read it carefully.

I can point to everyone, because everyone was born dead in sin. Are you arguing against everyone being born dead in sin? Jesus Himself said that He would draw all men to Himself.

I noticed you've avoided my question about the effects of being dead in sin. can you answer please? What are the effects of being dead in sin?

No, I don't think that at all. Everyone is dead in sin until God regenerates those who believe.

Can you explain how somebody dead in sin can voluntarily turn to God?

You are forgiven.

Thank you. In fact my apology was premature as you ignored my question previously, as you have in this post.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Unwilling IS a choice.

Uh, not exactly. According to Calvinism, fallen man has no moral ability to choose or be willing. The ONLY way being unwilling is a choice is IF one is able to be willing.

You are only dealing with 1 side of this. If there is no ability, whether "moral" or whatever, there is no choice at all.

So, your claim here is valid ONLY IF you agree that unregenerate man HAS the moral ability to be willing. If not, then your claim here is invalid.

But I know what the Bible says about this, contrary to what Calvinism believes.

God created mankind with a conscience. That is proof that mankind does have the moral ability to know right from wrong, to be willing or unwilling.

Rom 2:14-15
14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them

The conscience IS proof that unregenerate man has moral ability, given by God.

 

[guuila]

Uh, not exactly. According to Calvinism, fallen man has no moral ability to choose or be willing. The ONLY way being unwilling is a choice is IF one is able to be willing.

Has anyone been treated wrongly? Even if you're right and they don't have a choice, so what?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Apparently it hasn't dawned on you yet that man's choice is ALWAYS subservient to God's choice.

Your comment here makes no sense. This is what I said:

I've not brought up anything what man chooses. I've been focused on what Calvinism teaches, that God does all the choosing.

Again, I never brought up anything what man chooses. I'm sorry you apparently don't want to see that.

Which describes the means through which He saves. He set it up this way, so of course it pleases Him to do so. But you are assuming things that are not actually said here.

Not assuming at all. Do you really think that God doesn't choose what "well pleases" Him to do? Of course He chooses to do what "well pleases" Him to do. So there is NO assumption that 1 Cor 1:21 indicates that God chooses to save believers.

You are assuming that man's action causes God to save him, when actually it's the reverse, that God causes the man to believe (via regenerating him unto belief of the truth), and it pleases Him to save that man.

Well, you just provided an excellent example of assumption. There isn't anything in 1 Cor 1:21 (nor the rest of the Bible) that says that God causes man to believe. You have zero support for that assumption. In fact, 1 Cor 1:21 SAYS that God is pleased to save believers. As such, He chooses to save them.

Because it's a bogus question.

Really? This is what I said:

You have really missed the whole point. From your opening statement in this post, you said: "Calvinism teaches that unless God has chosen them they WILL NOT believe." So HOW can man be held responsible SINCE God does the choosing? You have not answered THAT question. I don't believe you CAN.

In fact, you CANNOT answer my question, so you hide behind the "bogus" defense. That's all. Again, how can man be held accountable SINCE God does the choosing of who will believe, in your theology? It is a legitimate question, but one that you cannot answer.

Underlying your question is the clear belief that unless God gives man a "fair chance", He has done an in justice to those He doesn't choose to save.

Not at all. You only assume there is some "underlying" thing in my question. My question to you is clear and direct, and you can't answer it, or you would have. Instead, you hide behind the bogus charge.

That's where that stupid "excuse" idea comes from. You think that God "owes" man a "fair chance" in order to be able to hold man responsible.

You are really missing the whole point here. The issue is choice, remember? And you believe that ALL choice is God's to make, not man's, remember? So please stay focused on that issue. I've never brought up "fair chance" or God "owing" man anything. Never. It doesn't make sense for you to bring it up since I've never brought it up. Please stay focused.

Deny it all you want, logically that's the only place your faulty theology can end up, when one connects the dots.

Uh, end up "where"? I have no idea what you are suggesting or insinuating.

And I believe your only reason for being here is to bait and goad, and antagonize Calvinists, and I think there are people behind the scenes feeding you and advising you.

What an odd response to what I said:

I believe you are talking out of both sides of your mouth, so to speak. You and others have said that unregenerate man can only choose bad. So, it isn't really a choice at all, since there's no other options for him to choose from.

I challenged you to explain how one who can "only choose bad" be making a choice at all, and your "response" is just an attack on me, about baiting and goading. Is that how you view questions that you are UNABLE to answer? Well, that would be convenient, huh. And ease your conscience at the same time. Well, I haven't baited or goaded anyone. I came here asking questions and challenging Calvinism. And this is the kind of response I get. Not helping your side at all.

Now, you say I came here to "antagonize" Calvinists. Are you feeling antagonized? Why? Because you can't answer my questions? Who else do you know who feels antagonized? You're the only one who has told me that I antagonize. Have others told you that I have antagonized them?

As for your comment about my having "people behind the scences feeding and advising me", well, you can put that bit of nonsense out of your mind. I came here on my own, and I'm still on my own. The only "feeding" I got was quite indirect. Someone posted a sermon from Spurgeon where he taught that 1 Tim 2:4 referred to everyone in humanity. I copied that post just minutes before hammster found it and deleted it. That's the only reason I was able to begin a thread about what Spurgeon taught, which affirmed what I had said early on.

You may call that "feeding", but it didn't come to me in a PM. I just found it minutes after it was posted, and minutes before hammster removed it.

we've seen their trolling posts here, hinting at their support, and connecting you with other former posters who have acted just like you, and have been banned. In fact, they are probably some of the trolls.

None of them have contacted me. I have had some supportive PMs, but just "moral support" for what I've done.

As for the choice question which so consumes you.

Kinda strong language, don'tcha think? Apparently you are bothered by the fact that you cannot answer my questions about your theology of election.

Even if they can only choose "bad", then have a choice of what kind of "bad" they want, so they still have real choices.

You are totally ignoring or dodging the real issue. If "bad" is the only thing they CAN do, then it simply ISN'T a choice at all. Nothing more than instinct, like an animal. Animals do what their nature dictates. A carnivore eats meat, and a herbivore eats plants. They do not "share" their meals with each other.

A carnivore doesn't "choose" to eat meat. It's just what they eat. Likewise, a herbivore doesn't "choose" to eat plants. It's just what they eat.

Choice is not just between good and evil, or it isn't a real choice. That's very faulty reasoning on your part.

The faulty reasoning rests solely on you.

You know, we're all big boys and girls here

They why all the feelings of "antagonism", then? Why not just answer my questions, instead of all your dodging?

and I know that you want to believe that Calvinists all march in lock-step, and goose-step in unison to "Der Fuhrer", "Herr Calvin".

How do you know that? Why are you trying so hard to attack my person and thoughts with things that you know nothing about?

We all actually think for ourselves, and don't always agree on every last little point of doctrine. Your problem is that you try to apply what one person may have told you (which you may not have even understood, or it wasn't correct), to everyone here, and we keep telling you you're wrong, which sends you into tirades against Calvinism out of frustration, I would assume.

I challenge you to show me any posts of mine that were "tirades against Calfvinism". And as for "frustration", how do you know my mood at any given time? You don't, so your comment here reflects some very poor choice of words and thoughts on your part. I'm not frustrated at all. Sometimes amazed. Sometimes amused. But never frustrated. By the sound of your post here, it appears to me that you are very frustrated.

You don't have good information to begin with, and apparently you don't want to update it, because you've refused every attempt to do so. That's not the fault of Calvinism.

Well, you can talk about your fellow Calvinists on this forum any way you want to, but I happen to believe that the other Calvinists here on this forum DO know and understand their theology. I think your problem is with the other Calvinists on this forum.

You keep forgetting to add the obvious disclaimer: In My Opinion.

I've given Scripture that actually SAYS what I believe and claim. I've not seen that from Calvinists.

I am very aware of it, and I object to your subtle hinting that I am unaware of Scriptures. Please, grow up!

I don't understand your objection. You indicated a point that was "subtle" and not clearly stated, and I showed you where the point was clearly stated. So I was correct to tell you that you weren't aware of it. You don't need to be so sensitive to a simple correction.

Actually there are. Sorry you refuse to see them.

This is a typical response that indicates that you do NOT have verses that SAY what you claim. If you actually did have a verse or two, you would have easily given them to me. But all you did here is make another claim. Claims don't mean much. Verses that actually SAY what you claim mean the world to me.

Naive? Is that really necessary? Can't you speak to anyone without trying to belittle them? You do not elevate yourself, by belittling others. The exact opposite happens.

If someone IS being a bit naive, then what should I say to them?

It was an example, a way of showing the principle and idea behind it. Apparently you aren't able to think in those terms. You obviously missed my point, but then again, you've missed a lot of points.

What's the deal here? You just claimed that I "belittle others" and here you are belittling me. Why do you do that?

We can and we have proven our points from scripture, your refusal to accept notwithstanding. QED

Your forgot one thing: in your opinion only.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The natural person thinks the Gospel is foolish. So yeah, I guess as long as a person thinks Jesus is stupid, they can't love Jesus.

The ministry of the Holy Spirit convicts the world (not the elect) of sin, righteousness, and judgment.

Why do you pray for a person's salvation?

Do you? I don't, because I know that God doesn't cause anyone to believe. I DO pray for opportunity to present the gospel, and for conviction of sin in others, so they will become open to the gospel.

If they're not going to believe, God already knows it right?

Your comment/question is quite irrelevant regarding your theology. Why do you ask about God's omniscience, when in your theology it is God alone who does the choosing who will believe. So it's not about His omniscience, but about His choice, right?

So why pray about it?

According to your theology, I have no idea why any Calvinist prays at all. Please explain it to me. Thanks.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I see the difference. I also see that the text doesn't say that they were chosen because they believed. Please read it carefully.

I have. Did you read it carefully? According to 1 Cor 1:21, did God choose to save believers? Yes or no. Are you aware of any texts that say that God chooses to save anyone other than believers? Yes or no. From my study of Scripture, my answers are both "yes". That being so, then God DOES choose to save those who believe. Because that's that believer ARE; those who believe.

Where have I "gone wrong" here?

I noticed you've avoided my question about the effects of being dead in sin. can you answer please? What are the effects of being dead in sin?

I didn't avoid anything. I'm not sure what you're even asking. So, there were 2 immediate effects on Adam; instant spiritual death, and eventual physical death. And all humans are born spiritually dead, and will eventually die physically. What else were you thinking of?

Can you explain how somebody dead in sin can voluntarily turn to God?

Well, I wouldn't tell anyone to "turn to God". Way too vague. I would tell them that because of sin, we are condemned to hell. But Jesus Christ, the Son of God, paid that debt in full, and will give the free gift of eternal life to anyone who trusts Him to save him from hell.

Apparently you view "dead in sin" as some kind of function (or lack thereof) thing. In actuality, being "dead in sin" is a positional thing. People dead in sin are separated from God. That's positional, not functional. They can hear, read, and think. They can understand the gospel message. And they can believe it. It's just that you don't believe it.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Has anyone been treated wrongly? Even if you're right and they don't have a choice, so what?

Or, as Hillary Clinton once quipped, "what difference does it make?"

The "so what" is that in your theology, there are no choices except the choices that God makes. That PROVES that man cannot be held accountable for anything because God made all choices.

Please explain HOW man is accountable for the choices that God makes? Can you do that for me?

In fact, it is a very big "so what".

 

[guuila]

The ministry of the Holy Spirit convicts the world (not the elect) of sin, righteousness, and judgment.

Verse? And please exegete it. Don't just throw it out there leaving the work for me to do.

Do you? I don't, because I know that God doesn't cause anyone to believe. I DO pray for opportunity to present the gospel, and for conviction of sin in others, so they will become open to the gospel.

Wow you don't pray for anyone's salvation? At least you're honest I guess. Why do you pray for opportunity to present the Gospel? God already knows if he's going to make that happen or not anyway, so why pray for it?

Your comment/question is quite irrelevant regarding your theology. Why do you ask about God's omniscience, when in your theology it is God alone who does the choosing who will believe. So it's not about His omniscience, but about His choice, right?

I don't understand the question.

According to your theology, I have no idea why any Calvinist prays at all. Please explain it to me. Thanks.

Because Scripture tells us to pray, and for all the reasons Scripture tells us to pray.

 

[guuila]

Or, as Hillary Clinton once quipped, "what difference does it make?"

The "so what" is that in your theology, there are no choices except the choices that God makes. That PROVES that man cannot be held accountable for anything because God made all choices.

Please explain HOW man is accountable for the choices that God makes? Can you do that for me?

In fact, it is a very big "so what".

If God doesn't give man a choice, and God still holds him accountable, what is the problem?

 

[Don Maurer]

Griff (and FG2), I agree with Griff. On the other hand, I doubt Griff will ever get FG2 to present any evidence for his position. FG2 does not have that ability (I just had to make that Pun). In fact I will be surprised if FG2 even actually does anything more than list verses. He will not work in a text like Romans 9.

I see no where in scripture that the responsibility of man is established by the necessity of choice, free will, or mans ability.

On the other hand, I would point to a text which does place upon man responsibility due to revelation.
Romans 120 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:
The last clause in Romans 1:20 clearly leaves no room for saying, "but it was not my choice." The reason mankind is without excuse in Romans 1:20 has nothing to do with ability to make choices, but because God has revealed himself in nature. The term "without excuse" relates to the issue of responsibility.

Romans 9, of course, also mentions another reason for the fact that God can judge even if man has no real choice. "Choice" is the main objection of Pauls hypothetical opponent in ...
Romans 916 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.
In Romans 9:16, responsibility lies with man even when Gods judgment is spoken of (see vs 22 for his wrath). Then in verse 19, Pharaoh complains that he is still being made responsible even though it was God's will. Of course the issue there is that Pharaoh can complain in this manner because Pharaoh's will was determined by God's will. Here is verse 19.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?
The term "fault" certainly relates to responsibility. The question is how can God make Pharaoh responsible when God decrees the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. Where is human ability to make decisions in Romans 9?

The two passages attribute human responsibility to two different things. In Rromans 1, human responsibility was based upon Gods self revelation in nature, and then in Romans 9, human responsibility is based upon God's sovereignty.

 

[Hammster]

Uh, not exactly. According to Calvinism, fallen man has no moral ability to choose or be willing. The ONLY way being unwilling is a choice is IF one is able to be willing.

You are only dealing with 1 side of this. If there is no ability, whether "moral" or whatever, there is no choice at all.

So, your claim here is valid ONLY IF you agree that unregenerate man HAS the moral ability to be willing. If not, then your claim here is invalid.

But I know what the Bible says about this, contrary to what Calvinism believes.

God created mankind with a conscience. That is proof that mankind does have the moral ability to know right from wrong, to be willing or unwilling.

Rom 2:14-15
14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them

The conscience IS proof that unregenerate man has moral ability, given by God.

Fallen man has the moral ability to choose right from wrong. And he will choose what he wants. Paul describes him a little later in Romans 3.

What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, "T here is none righteous, not even one; T here is none who understands, T here is none who seeks for G od; A ll have turned aside, together they have become useless; T here is none who does good, T here is not even one." "T heir throat is an open grave, W ith their tongues they keep deceiving," "T he poison of asps is under their lips "; "W hose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness "; "T heir feet are swift to shed blood, D estruction and misery are in their paths, A nd the path of peace they have not known." "T here is no fear of G od before their eyes." (Romans 3:9-18 NASB)

 

[FreeGrace2]

Verse? And please exegete it. Don't just throw it out there leaving the work for me to do.

I've always viewed searching the Scriptures as fun, not work. But John 16:8-9 are the verses. And they don't have to be exegeted. They are real clear.

Wow you don't pray for anyone's salvation?

I explained my view. Didn't you read it?

At least you're honest I guess.

I have always been honest on this forum. I have nothing to hide.

Why do you pray for opportunity to present the Gospel? God already knows if he's going to make that happen or not anyway, so why pray for it?

The issue isn't whether God already knows. Of course He already knows. But the answer to your question is the SAME as WHY Paul tried to persuade men to believe the gospel. No different.

I don't understand the question.

Here it is again:

Your comment/question is quite irrelevant regarding your theology. Why do you ask about God's omniscience, when in your theology it is God alone who does the choosing who will believe. So it's not about His omniscience, but about His choice, right?

You brought up God's omniscience, which isn't really relevant to your theology, since God alone does the choosing of who will believe. So why did you bring it up? Hope that's clear.

Because Scripture tells us to pray, and for all the reasons Scripture tells us to pray.

Sure. And I do pray. But not for God to save anyone. I already know that He is pleased to save those who believe, and I know that He doesn't cause anyone to believe.