No person can come to Christ by their own freewill !

[Fervent]

Ah. So we are to take your word for it that Paul meant that hyperbolically and therefore we can ignore it?

Might want to re-read what I said, as it's not Paul's usage that I said was hyperbolic. Paul used it pastorally, as an indictment against attitudes in the Roman church where one group was esteeming themselves better than another for receiving the law. The hyperbolic element comes from its original context, which is Psalm 14.

Can you point me in the direction of the whole generation of righteous individuals?

It's in the Psalm Paul was quoting from:
There they are in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous.

 

[A New Dawn]

Might want to re-read what I said, as it's not Paul's usage that I said was hyperbolic. Paul used it pastorally, as an indictment against attitudes in the Roman church where one group was esteeming themselves better than another for receiving the law. The hyperbolic element comes from its original context, which is Psalm 14.

It's in the Psalm Paul was quoting from:
There they are in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous.

Perhaps you can demonstrate what is hyperbolic about that Psalm. It doesn’t seem over the top to me. But if I can see what you are saying I can try to understand your POV.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about a real generation of righteous people. From the context of the Psalm, it appears that the generation of righteous are the Children of Israel and he is speaking about how the enemies view them, seeings they do not believe in God.

 

[Fervent]

Perhaps you can demonstrate what is hyperbolic about that Psalm. It doesn’t seem over the top to me. But if I can see what you are saying I can try to understand your POV.

It'd be self-contradictory in speaking of a righteous generation if there were none who are righteous. Hyperbole doesn't have to be "over the top", simply an exageration for effect. Which making absolute statements that are contradicted elsewhere in Scripture(see statements about Noah, Job, David, and Daniel) renders it likely that a poetic statement is figurative in some way, and the most likely figurative type for that particular one is hyperbole.

Though the bigger issue is its contextual usage in Paul, because he tells us why he's quoting that particular Psalm. Which is not to make an anthropological statement, but to counter Jewish chauvenism that was present in the Roman church and creating a division along ethnic lines.

 

[A New Dawn]

It'd be self-contradictory in speaking of a righteous generation if there were none who are righteous. Hyperbole doesn't have to be "over the top", simply an exageration for effect. Which making absolute statements that are contradicted elsewhere in Scripture(see statements about Noah, Job, David, and Daniel) renders it likely that a poetic statement is figurative in some way, and the most likely figurative type for that particular one is hyperbole.

Though the bigger issue is its contextual usage in Paul, because he tells us why he's quoting that particular Psalm. Which is not to make an anthropological statement, but to counter Jewish chauvenism that was present in the Roman church and creating a division along ethnic lines.

I edited my post above to respond about the righteous generation.

 

[bling]

Most all of us believe in free will choices. We just disagree with what that means. If we are slaves to sin, how can we make any choice except out of our nature? In which case, how can that choice be concrete if we only have limited options to choose from?

You can have limited options and still make free will choices even if your choice is to not like any option.
First off: do you believe Adam and Eve made a free will choice to eat?
Sinners can choose to want to do different sins, all being sin. If a sinner for purely selfish reasons want to humbly accept God's pure undeserved charity, he is still sinning because he is using selfish (sinful) motivations, so why can't a sinner do that?

 

[bling]

Good day, Bling

Everybody believes in free-will and the ability of men to make choices:

Edwards covers it here:

"You may think that there is no great need to take trouble to define or describe the will, because the word ‘will’ is generally as well understood as any other words we might use to explain it. You would be right if it weren’t for the fact that scientists, philosophers, and polemical preachers have thrown the will into darkness by the things they have said about it. But that is the fact; so I think it may be of some use, and will increase my chances of being clear throughout this book, if I say a few things concerning it. Well, then: setting aside metaphysical subtleties, the will is that by which the mind chooses anything. The •faculty of the will is the power of, or source in, the mind by which it is capable of choosing; an •act of the will is an act of choosing or choice. If you think the will is better defined by saying that it is that by which the soul either chooses or refuses, I’ll settle for that; though I don’t think we need to add ‘or refuses’, for in every act of will the mind chooses one thing rather than another; it chooses something rather than the absence or non-existence of that thing. So in every act of •refusal the mind •chooses the absence of the thing refused, so that refusing is just a special case of choosing.... So that whatever names we give to the act of the will— ‘choosing’, ‘refusing’, ‘approving’, ‘disapproving’, ‘lik ing’, ‘disliking’, ‘embracing’, ‘rejecting’, ‘determining’, ‘directing’, ‘commanding’, ‘forbidding’, ‘inclining’, ‘be ing averse to’, ‘being pleased with’, ‘being displeased with’ —they all come down to choosing.... Locke says: ‘The will signifies nothing but a power or ability to prefer or choose."

The question is what is the cause that moves the will either positive or negative to a proposition.

In Him

Bill

If the person for whatever reason, cannot mentally choose to do another thing, otherwise it is not a free will mental choice. The sinner cannot do noble, honorable, holy, righteous, or glorious in his choices, but he can choose to want to do different selfish behaviors.

 

[bling]

Good day,

I did explain the reason you must of missed it...

He does it because he wills it to be so, it servers His purpose therefore they are not arbitrary.

He acts choosing ( verb) according to His good pleasure, it pleasing Him to do so.

chose us according to the good pleasure of his will

He has Mercy on some because it serves his purpose and it pleases him to do so.


In Him,

Bill

That is just saying: "For some unexplainable hidden reason God somehow chooses one over the other. The difference between you and I is the fact I see God's obvious reason for choosing one over the other and you throw up you hands and say: "Only God knows." Jesus came to earth to show us who God is, so why would Jesus not allow some to have an excepting heart?

 

[Fervent]

I edited my post above to respond about the righteous generation.

Your response assumes much, and sows confusion rather then making things clear. Are the children of Israel not "real"? And where does it say that it's referring to the POV of the enemies? What are you basing these things on?

 

[Brightfame52]

No one went to the son in the pigsty, but after his bad decisions caused him to wind up in the pigsty he could look around, see where he got himself and starving to death in the pigsty was where he was heading. He could remember the Love his father showed and selfishly want that undeserved Love for himself.
The son could turn while in a dead state, but he could not throw a feast for himself, be made alive.

So you believe folk is God now and raises themselves up from the dead. Lost folk now find themselves, man gets the credit and not God Lk 15:24

For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.

Now " is found" is in the passive voice, meaning he didnt find himself, someone found him. Its the same thing being alive, he didnt make himself alive.

 

[Brightfame52]

That's a quote from a Psalm that Paul is using to a pastoral end, namely to point out that the Jews aren't better off than gentiles for having been the recipients of the law. If we examine the Psalm Paul quotes, we find that that line is hyperbolic and that there are not only righteous individuals but an entire generation of the righteous.

Calvinism depends on proof texting verses like this and Isaiah 64:6 in order to maintain itself. Proper contextual understanding of the Bible renders the idea of total inability/depravity unsustainable and the house of cards tumbles when that cornerstone goes away.

Its describing all men by nature, born under the power of sin, jew or gentile. The key is all naturally are under the power of sin Rom 3:9-10

9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: The word under the prep ὑπό:

to be under, i. e. subject to the power of, any person or thing:

Nobody is free from that naturally. Paul is masterfully showing the need for salvation by the Sovereign Grace of God, the T in Tulip

 

[d taylor]

So you belief a saved child of God can go from being elect to being "dead?"

-

​

A born again child of God can walk away from their faith and go back into the world. When a child of God does this they become dead to God, until they repent and seek fellowship with God their father again. If they never repent God may take their earthly life or let their worldly life take a toll on the born again child and cause them to suffer for going back into the world. But they never cease to be a born again child of God.

 

[d taylor]

NO, it isn’t. God, himself gave Jesus unbelieving persons to save, which Jesus did, not losing one. (John 6)

Paul says, in Romans, that ALL have sinned and therefore none seek for or know God.

What’s fraught with problems, because there is nothing to support the concept, is that fallen man can in any way choose to follow Jesus without first being drawn and changed by God.

-
​

I have never talked about following Jesus, when i am addressing receiving God's free gift of Eternal Life. As following Jesus does not give a person God's free gift of Eternal Life, only belief in Jesus gives a person Eternal Life.

 

[d taylor]

-
​

Well i can not quote your post #104 as you did not post it correctly.

But to address your Romans 8:7 verse, is addressed to believers and warning them not to have a carnal mind set.

 

[Brightfame52]

-

​

A born again child of God can walk away from their faith and go back into the world. When a child of God does this they become dead to God, until they repent and seek fellowship with God their father again. If they never repent God may take their earthly life or let their worldly life take a toll on the born again child and cause them to suffer for going back into the world. But they never cease to be a born again child of God.

Thats a sorry eternal redemption. Heb 9:12

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Nothing about mans freewill here, in fact its about Christs Sovereign will

You're saying that about this verse:

John 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.

What do you mean exactly? Do you understand that someone can be drawn to Him by the preaching of the gospel and by the Holy Spirit, but that the Holy Spirit can then be resisted? God sovereignly gave man free will to choose whether to accept His offer of salvation or not because He doesn't force Himself upon anyone.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.

God graciously offers salvation to all people and Jesus draws all people to Himself by way of the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit can be resisted and God's offer can be rejected.

Acts 7:51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!

Acts 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: “We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Im not agreeing with you. All the drawn are converted. The drawing is their conversion. So it doesnt include the unconverted

Jesus said He would draw all people to Himself (John 12:32), but not all people are converted, so you are wrong.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient to cover all sin, it is efficient only for those that he chooses, draws, turns their heart to himself, and gifts saving faith.

This is complete nonsense. Why would He make a sacrifice that was sufficient to cover all sin and then make it so that wasn't possible because of purposely only choosing to cover the sins of some? That's contradictory. You are correct that His sacrifice was sufficient to cover all sin, so the only explanation that not all people's sins are covered is because some choose not to accept what Jesus did for them. Jesus wouldn't die for all and then purposely make it so that not all could be saved. God graciously offers salvation to all people (Titus 2:11) and it's not the disingenuous offer that Calvinists make it out to be. In Calvinism, God offers nothing in relation to salvation and it's entirely up to His choice alone as to who is saved or not.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I have to disagree. In John 6, not only doe He say that none can come unless they are drawn, but that of all that God gives him (and He draws) He will lose none.

You might want to rethink about what that verse means.

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

So there is a disconnect between the verse you quoted and Christ’s words in John. I propose that the disconnect lies in that fact that while God wants everyone to be saved (as all parents would) the only ones that are actually saved are those He has elected to save. The rest will not be drawn or regenerated, and therefore will not even have a desire to be saved.

Why would God want everyone to be saved, but then purposely make it so that only some would be saved while the rest would not even have an opportunity to be saved? That's contradictory. If God wants everyone to be saved, which He does (1 Timothy 2:3-6), then He would make it possible for everyone to have the opportunity to be saved, and that is exactly what He did. Otherwise, it would not be true that He wants everyone to be saved.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

freewill? We are slaves! either to Sin or Righteousness. Have a great day everyone!

Does being a slave to righteousness mean you never sin? No. Does being a slave to sin mean you never do anything that is right? No. So, you need to think about what these things mean instead of acting as if being a slave to sin means you can't repent of your sins. It doesn't mean that any more than being a slave of righteousness means you can't sin.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Hardly so! God is the source and sustenance of all good.

That being so, how can anyone make good choices without being IN CHRIST?

"Apart from me you can do nothing" is not hyperbole. And that includes faith, regeneration and salvation. Your eternity does not hinge on your decision, but on God's alone.

That does not include faith. You are making that up. The context of that statement is in relation to fruit/works, not faith. Please stop taking scripture out of context like this.

Are you suggesting that you never made any good choices before being in Christ? That's nonsense.