All languages change over time. Word usage and word meanings change. There are Greek Scholars who have literally spent years learning that modern Greek and Koine Greek have differences in usage, meaning, and intent. That is why a Lexicon is one of many tools to find the meaning, but it is not the final authority on Greek.
So, who is, then? If a lexicon is one of "many tools", what are the others?
Sure. The post I responded to.
Maybe the amount of posts generated on this particular thread hasn't risen to your level of consciousness, but I asked for a specific post. That means post #. Not some vague response. I don't have the time to try to dig through possible pages of posts to determine what you might have meant. If you don't provide the exact post #, forget it. That only means there really isn't one.
Please tell us how a man with an unchanged heart can believe on Christ. He can't.
What makes your opinion so true? An equally valid question is, why NOT? We know from Scripture that God created mankind to seek Him (Acts 17:26-27), and that God has revealed His divine attributes and existence to everyone (Rom 1:19-20). So, what's stopping man from believing? Seems your insinuation is that God's creative attempt is less than satisfactory, if man cannot seek (or believe) in God or what He promises. And that view is quite unsatisfactory to me. Completely so.
He's dead in his trespasses and sins.
Spiritual death only means separated from God, not lack of function as your next point is claiming.
Dead man cannot do anything to make themselves alive, either physically or spiritually.
This isn't even close to the issue. Spiritually dead men CAN and DO hear the voice of the Son of God (Jn 5:25). No one here is arguing that man makes themselves alive, so please quit with all these silly red herrings.
Scripture says that while we were dead (in trespasses and sins), GOD quickened us.
Sure. And who are the "us" in THAT context? Paul included himself with his audience. So, who was his audience? Believers in Ephesians.
Here is what Paul was saying: God quickens believers.
God doesn't require our faith for that. He quickens us so that we CAN believe and receive Christ.
Except that there aren't any verses that say or teach that. So there is no reason on earth to believe any of this.
God DOES require belief before He will save anyone. Seen in the myriads of verses that link belief to eternal life/salvation.
If one has believed, they decided to believe, and decisions involve the will. the silly red herring is trying to deny that the will has anything to do with anything, let alone faith.
Not really. If your statement were true, then people could will themselves to believe anything, whether sane or not. But no one can will themself to believe anything. Yes, we choose what we will believe, but it is NOT based on man's will.
I will believe your claim here IF you can prove to me that you are able to will yourself to believe that Santa Claus actually exists and brings presents to everyone at Christmas time. Please let me know how that works out.
Unless you can prove your claim that one wills what they believe, there is no reason to accept that view.
Man believes from the heart because he decides to do so, which is an act of the will. Are you aware of this difference?
This is all in error. It is NOT an act of the will. The challenge has been made. When you can prove to me and this thread that you can will yourself to believe in Santa Claus, I will believe it. But not until then.
Any act of faith also involves the will.
I will be waiting for your proof of this claim. I've given a pretty simple thing to believe. Can you do it?
It's odd how when it matters, man's will is of vital importance, and when it's inconvenient, man's will gets thrown under the bus. Care to explain why that is?
When have I EVER even hinted at the "vital importance" of man's will? Again, I'd like specific post #s, so I can check them out. Trust but verify is my code.
Calling what I say silly and ridiculous is a red herring, because you apparently cannot own up to what you have said, and where those words lead.
All that is required is to provide actual post #s to prove your claim. Easy enough, if there are any that support your claim.
Calling what others say silly, ridiculous, and hinting that stupidity or ignorance is the underlying reason, is properly classified as baiting and goading.
Hold on right there. I've said NOTHING about "studity or ignorance". Those most definitely ARE goading and flaming. But statements that ARE silly or ridiculous will be noted. If one doesn't want their posts to be described that way, it's imperative that one doesn't make a silly or ridiculous post.
Holding others to account for every word they say, while trying to avoid being held to that same standard, is poor debate tactics.
This is just an ill-informed judgment of my standards. Please DO hold my words to account.
Why do you think I frequently ask other posters to refute my points specifically? Because if I say anything that can be proven false, I surely want to know about it.
We both don't want to be wrong. But the difference is that I ask for refutation of my points, and your response to any refutation or criticism is overly sensitive.
I've gotten very strong disagreements with all the Calvinists who post here. But I'm still waiting for actual refutation, which has not been presented. When I ask, the usual response is, "already done that", when all that was done was to reject what I posted, or simply disagree with it, or worse, ignore or dodge what I posted. None of that counts as refutation.
