Is a Contiguous Count of Daniel’s 70 Weeks found in New Testament Writings?

[grafted branch]

Now we are leaving the point about choice, and moving onto hearing or not hearing the Gospel.

Free will is not the same as being in the dark about the need to even be saved. If Satan has blinded humanity and stolen the Gospel that has no bearing whatsoever on one's free will, even if it seems there should be a similarity somehow.

So no, I do not equate one who never hears the Gospel as the same as forcing them against their will to reject God. How can they reject what they do not even know?

Does a person have free will if there is nothing to choose? Sure. The ability to choose is dependent on having no coercion, not on the lack of knowledge. Lack of knowledge is not the same thing as an inability to choose. Those who are reprobate know the truth, and know they can never accept the truth. Deception or lack of knowledge is not relevant.

You cannot claim free will does not exist, based solely on the point one has nothing to choose. Free will only steps in when one can choose. I am not sure that in a modern setting where information runs rampant, that is even an argument. Yet even in king David's time, it was declared that no man is without excuse. That was centuries before the Cross and the preaching of the Gospel. The flip side is today you have too many "gospels". So many are decieved, yet still not for sure these are valid excuses, but just excuses that humans give, thus declared by Jesus as reasons the gospel is not known.

But still, free will is based on coercion against one's ability to choose. Or they have no choice because someone else made the choice for them. Satan snatching away the gospel is not removing choice, it is removing knowledge. That is a round about way to stop a person from making a choice, but certainly not making the choice for them.

I do not know any one who is so bound by another being's will they have lost all will themselves. Certainly even the lost frown upon such a maneuver by another individual. Yes it happens. People who have been locked up as slaves. People brainwashed in cults. These are not rules that govern free will. These are aberrant behavior of a few individuals not in their right mind themselves who have seriously harmed the minds of others.

An example of side stepping free will is infant baptism. Alledgedly this is to confirm some how a redemptive process. Obviously that is coercion of one's will, because others took that choice away and forced them into reliance on a false belief. There was literally no choice but a knowledge declared about that individual. Otherwise there is really no example of God directly forcing one into eternal life without a choice made by that individual. There is no example of Satan going against a person's will and forcing that person into damnation without a choice. Or vice versa these two scenarios.

Yes the gospel has been hindered and darkness ruled the day, but still not a point to claim free will does not exist. God's Word points out, no one has an excuse, nor can they say they had no free will to choose. Even though the gospel is recieved, or hindered because of a list of excuses why one "missed" the gospel their whole life, free will still exist.

Now those who cannot choose also need to be defined. The fine line between having a will and understanding even what sin is. Has God chosen to redeem all abortions? Has God chosen to redeem those with severe mental issues where the knowledge of sin is not even known nor understood? Do some have a will that is locked against accepting God because of a mental condition. I don't have an answer. But this still does not mean there is no free will.

We both agree on this, 2 Corinthians 4:4 shows that some people at some point will not be able to make a free will choice.

I would say this, people who believe in free will but do not have free will are unaware of that fact.

Do you know of any person that can recognize that they once had free will but no longer do?

 

[Timtofly]

We both agree on this, 2 Corinthians 4:4 shows that some people at some point will not be able to make a free will choice.

I would say this, people who believe in free will but do not have free will are unaware of that fact.

Do you know of any person that can recognize that they once had free will but no longer do?

I normally do not have this conversation with reprobates. At least they do not admit they are reprobate.

 

[grafted branch]

I normally do not have this conversation with reprobates. At least they do not admit they are reprobate.

Yea, I have never heard of anyone saying or even suggesting that they lost their free will.


Consider this; when Jesus told Peter, after the last supper, that he would deny him thrice that same night; Peter said though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee.

Clearly Peter didn’t want to deny yet once he was told that’s what he would do, Peter no longer had free will to prevent the denial. He acted like a robot and did exactly what he said he wouldn’t do.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Yea, I have never heard of anyone saying or even suggesting that they lost their free will.

A lost person doesn't even think about such things.

Consider this; when Jesus told Peter, after the last supper, that he would deny him thrice that same night; Peter said though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee.

Clearly Peter didn’t want to deny yet once he was told that’s what he would do, Peter no longer had free will to prevent the denial. He acted like a robot and did exactly what he said he wouldn’t do.

You have that completely wrong. Jesus knew the future, so that's how He knew that Peter would deny Him. Just because He knew what Peter was going to do doesn't mean Peter had no choice in the matter. And just because Peter intended not to deny Christ but did anyway doesn't mean he did so against his will. As Jesus said, "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." (Matt 26:41/Mark 14:38).

 

[grafted branch]

You have that completely wrong. Jesus knew the future, so that's how He knew that Peter would deny Him. Just because He knew what Peter was going to do doesn't mean Peter had no choice in the matter. And just because Peter intended not to deny Christ but did anyway doesn't mean he did so against his will. As Jesus said, "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." (Matt 26:41/Mark 14:38).

No matter how you look at it Peter couldn’t use free will. If Peter didn’t deny Jesus then Jesus would have lied, which is an impossibility.

If the flesh prevented Peter from using his will to not deny Jesus then the flesh prevented him from having a will that was free.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

No matter how you look at it Peter couldn’t use free will.

That is not true and I explained why already.

If Peter didn’t deny Jesus then Jesus would have lied, which is an impossibility.

Jesus knew the future. Do you understand that? So, of course what He knew and could foresee would happen couldn't possibly happen any other way. But, that doesn't mean He predetermined what would happen. He just knew it would happen. You are not differentiating between foreknowledge and predetermination.

If the flesh prevented Peter from using his will to not deny Jesus then the flesh prevented him from having a will that was free.

You are really not getting it. Jesus said the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. That does not mean we have no choice but to give in to the desires of the flesh. It just means it's difficult for us to not give in to it, but not impossible.

 

[DavidPT]

No matter how you look at it Peter couldn’t use free will. If Peter didn’t deny Jesus then Jesus would have lied, which is an impossibility.

I don't think you are looking at this from the right perspective. When Jesus intially said that to Peter, none of the events that might cause him to deny Jesus 3 times, had he been confronted with as of yet. And when he was confronted with them he chose the easy way out, thus used his free will, and decided at the time that it would be safer for him to deny Jesus.

Matthew 26:69 Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.
70 But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest.
71 And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth.
72 And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man.
73 And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee.
74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crew.
75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

Peter took the cowardly way out in order to try and save his own skin. And notice, Peter remembered what Jesus said, after the fact, which likely means, at the time, he wasn't even thinking about what Jesus had said earlier. He was just thinking about what would be the safest bet for him at the time. And then he realizes after the fact, after the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crew, that he just denied Jesus 3 times before the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crew.

 

[grafted branch]

Jesus knew the future. Do you understand that? So, of course what He knew and could foresee would happen couldn't possibly happen any other way. But, that doesn't mean He predetermined what would happen. He just knew it would happen. You are not differentiating between foreknowledge and predetermination.

I do understand that, Jesus knows exactly what my next post on this forum will be.

Do you understand that Peter, once he was told, also knew the future? From Peters perspective he had no choice from that time forward, no amount of will power could change that.

If I told you that you would make a post on this thread that said “Jesus is not my savior” by the end of today, do you think you would be able to prove me wrong by using your free will? If Jesus told you were going to make the post, you would have no alternative but to make the post.

 

[grafted branch]

I don't think you are looking at this from the right perspective. When Jesus intially said that to Peter, none of the events that might cause him to deny Jesus 3 times, had he been confronted with as of yet. And when he was confronted with them he chose the easy way out, thus used his free will, and decided at the time that it would be safer for him to deny Jesus.

Matthew 26:69 Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.
70 But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest.
71 And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth.
72 And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man.
73 And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee.
74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crew.
75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

Peter took the cowardly way out in order to try and save his own skin. And notice, Peter remembered what Jesus said, after the fact, which likely means, at the time, he wasn't even thinking about what Jesus had said earlier. He was just thinking about what would be the safest bet for him at the time. And then he realizes after the fact, after the crock crew, that he just denied Jesus 3 times before the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crew.

Do you think Peter still had a choice after he was told the future?

 

[Christian Gedge]

Given the importance of Daniel's famous ‘70 weeks’ prophecy, it is sometimes wondered why New Testament authors do not seem to make explicit mention of it. There have been two reasons suggested:

1. The seventieth ‘week’ has been detached from the sixty-nine and is yet future. Therefore, its reference is only found in Revelation’s mention of 3½ years and 1260 days. This is the popular view known as ‘Dispensationalism.’
2. The seventieth ‘week’ is contiguous with the sixty-nine and was completed 3½ years after the death of Christ. This view is held by those who believe the goals of the seventieth week were fulfilled in the ministry of Christ and his disciples. Mention does exist, but in different New Testament terminology.

I have limited my answers to the second explanation, finding ‘weeks’ mentioned in the New Testament (albeit hidden), which demonstrates that the New Testament authors were aware of Daniel’s countdown to world redemption. Here are links to key posts. My last example #5 is on a new thread because it is a topic in its own right. Please go there to discuss.

1. JOHN the BAPTIST noted the START of the SEVENTIETH WEEK.

2. ST. LUKE links the SEVENTIETH WEEK to the JUBILEE YEAR.

3. ST. PAUL called the END OF WEEKS the ‘FULLNESS of the TIME.’

4. ST. JOHN recorded the PRECISE DATE of the FIRST DAY of the SEVENTIETH WEEK.

5. The GOALS of the SEVENTIETH WEEK are KEY TOPICS of the NEW TESTAMENT.

My paper on this subject can also be found here: ‘DANIELS 70 WEEKS PROPHECY – RELATED FINDINGS.

 

[Timtofly]

Yea, I have never heard of anyone saying or even suggesting that they lost their free will.


Consider this; when Jesus told Peter, after the last supper, that he would deny him thrice that same night; Peter said though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee.

Clearly Peter didn’t want to deny yet once he was told that’s what he would do, Peter no longer had free will to prevent the denial. He acted like a robot and did exactly what he said he wouldn’t do.

I don't see it that way. Peter was accused of being a conspirator. Peter clearly acted in his own selfish free will interest. If Peter had been a robot, he would not have denied Christ, but boldly proclaimed the gospel. Jesus just pointed out Peter's own human frailty. Jesus did not make Peter deny being a disciple of Christ, by making a prophetic statement to that end.

 

[Timtofly]

No matter how you look at it Peter couldn’t use free will. If Peter didn’t deny Jesus then Jesus would have lied, which is an impossibility.

If the flesh prevented Peter from using his will to not deny Jesus then the flesh prevented him from having a will that was free.

You are looking at foreknowledge the wrong way. Peter as a robot would have declared the gospel. Then Jesus would have said the truth, that Peter would have stood up for Jesus.

Peter having or not having free will is not based on the truth of Jesus' words. Jesus did not coerce Peter to deny Christ. Not even by declaring it would happen. Scripture clearly points out that Peter totally forgot what Jesus had even said. Then after it happened, he remembered the words of Jesus. You state, erroneously, the words of Jesus was the driving factor and Peter would be bound by them. No. Peter straight up argued with Jesus, he would never do it, and Jesus said he would, because Jesus knew Peter better than Peter knew Peter.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

100% agreement.

24But to the rest of you in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not learned what some call the deep things of Satan, to you I say, I do not lay on you any other burden. 25Only hold fast what you have until I come. Did Jesus keep this promise to those in the church in Thyatira?

Just like the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven are the same, the throne of God and the Lamb are same throne. Revelation 22:1Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb.

The kingdom of heaven is manifested through the people of God, but it is not of this world. what do you think the kingdom of heaven/God are?

That is not Jesus coming in the glory of the Father with His angels and His reward with Him. He doesn't say "see a vision of Me"

In reference to your query on Thyatira and Christ’s return, I’ll remind you of the scriptural principle of protracted time expressed in imminence, and that it is common in prophecy so as to promote vigilance and discourage apathy. That’s the principle affirmed by the 70 weeks of this thread.

As for your continued fallacy of conflating Christ’s throne with the Father’s, I’ll remind you that Revelation 3:21 affirms two distinct thrones: Christ’s and the Father’s. Amillennialists fallaciously try to blind people concerning this distinction; I am not blinded by such fallacious doctrines. Psalms 110 affirms Christ was raised to sit at the subordinate right-hand side of his Father’s throne in heaven. And Revelation 22:1 does not support your doctrine either; the text represents the time when Christ renders the kingdom to the Father.

For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be abolished is death. For, He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him. And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15:25-28)​

Revelation 20 affirms that death is cast into the lake of fire prior to the scene depicted in Revelation 22:1, which affirms it is prophesizing the same event in 1 Corinthians 15:26-28. The right hand of God in heaven is in subjection to the Father so the only place where Christ can subdue everything under his feet is on earth when he returns, just as depicted in Matthew 25:31.

I’m not distracted from the evidence that our inheritance is this earth (Matthew 5:5) and not heaven where God abides (Acts 7:49). Our inheritance on earth is the heavenly country in Hebrews 11:16. And the kingdom to come in the prayer of Matthew 6:10 is certainly not of this world in which the tares grow along with the good seed. The kingdom to come in Matthew 6:10 is the age to come; in this age we struggle against the tares. Again, this is affirmed in Revelation.

But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. (Revelation 2:25-27)

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. (Revelation 3:21)​

Point is that the Amillennialist’s doctrine that this age represents Christ’s reign defies that Christ must be actively subjecting “all things” under him in his reign according to 1 Corinthians 15:25-28. We can’t have the tares allowed to grow and maintain that Christ is actively subjecting them under his feet at the same time. Allowing the tares to grow emphasizes a provocation of the tares, just as God provoked the Assyrians as his rod of anger against Israel (Isaiah 10:5). Subjecting all things under Christ emphasizes the “pacification” of his enemies under his reign. The tares are initially burnt up before he subjects all things under him. “All things” are not “pacified” by Christ until he returns.

But when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory: and before him shall be gathered all the nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats; and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. (Matthew 25:31-33)​

The fate of the goats is everlasting fire while the earth is pacified, all things on earth are brought under Christ in the age to come. That is Premillennialism!

As to Matthew 16:27-28, all it says is that some will “see” the event, which does not preclude a “vision,” inasmuch as there isn’t one creditable account from the ante-Nicene forefathers of Christ coming back in AD 70!

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. (Revelation 1:7 emphasis mine)​

 

[Jerryhuerta]

The word "Pharasitical" does not exist.

You're apparently unable to understand the difference between faith/belief and works.

Explain how faith/belief is a "work".

James repeatedly distinguishes between faith/belief and works (James 2), so James indisputably recognizes that faith/belief is not a work.

We are saved by grace through faith/belief unto good works (Ephesians 2:8-10). There is a clear distinction between the two, and Paul clearly recognizes that faith/belief is not a work.

If the jailer had died before believing on the Lord Jesus Christ for his salvation, would he still have gone to heaven? Since you claim that he was already saved before believing, you must obviously claim that he would have gone to heaven without having believed.

The affliction of hyper-calvinitis (sic) is on full display.

The jailer was saved before the foundation of the world.

Before the creation of the world, he chose us through Christ to be holy and perfect in his presence. (Ephesians 1:4)​

His good works were also ordained before the foundation of the world.

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:10)​

So, the jailer was ordained to believe and do good works before the foundation of the world, which destroys Arminianism and Open Theism. Arminianism and Open Theism hold the unscriptural and Pharisaical doctrine that salvation is a reward for our belief and of ourselves, which makes salvation no longer a gift and not of ourselves (Ephesians 2:8-9). Texts such as Acts 16::30-31 must be understood in the divided sense, while Ephesians 2:8-10 is in the compound sense.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The jailer was saved before the foundation of the world.

Before the creation of the world, he chose us through Christ to be holy and perfect in his presence. (Ephesians 1:4)​

His good works were also ordained before the foundation of the world.

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:10)​

Those verses are not speaking of specific people being chosen before the foundation of the world. What those verses mean is that God predetermined and chose that anyone who believed in Christ would be made holy and perfect in His presence and would have good works to do according to what God had ordained.

So, the jailer was ordained to believe and do good works before the foundation of the world, which destroys Arminianism and Open Theism.

That is absolutely false. You are butchering the text. If this was true then Paul and Silas would have answered the jailer's question very differently. Remember, the jailer asked what HE had to do to be saved (Acts 16:30). In your view, there was nothing he had to do to be saved. But, that isn't what Paul and Silas said to him. They said he had to "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved". He was responsible to do that. He was not ordained to do that. If he was then Paul and Silas would have answered him by saying "there is nothing you can do to be saved. God does it all. Just wait and see if God chose you to be saved or not and don't worry about it in the meantime. If He did then He will cause (force) you to believe in Jesus and then you'll be saved.".

Arminianism and Open Theism hold the unscriptural and Pharisaical doctrine that salvation is a reward for our belief and of ourselves, which makes salvation no longer a gift and not of ourselves (Ephesians 2:8-9). Texts such as Acts 16::30-31 must be understood in the divided sense, while Ephesians 2:8-10 is in the compound sense.

Wrong. Paul did not say in Ephesians 2:8-9 that salvation is not of our faith, it says salvation is not of our works. Salvation is by God's grace through personal faith in Christ and not of our own works. That's what Paul taught. Paul differentiated between faith and works. Why aren't you differentiating between them?

Having faith in Christ is not among the works that Paul wrote about that someone could boast about if salvation was of works. Faith involves repenting and acknowledging our sins and that we can't save ourselves and that only Jesus can save us through His shed blood and resurrection. Where is boasting in that? The concern over boasting over one's salvation is if someone thinks they can save themselves by doing good works (see James 2:21-25 for examples of good works) or by sacrificing themselves as only Christ could do.

Your Calvinist doctrine denies the responsibility that God gives to man and denies that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2) and that God wants everyone to repent (2 Peter 3:9, Acts 17:30) and to be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-6). Your doctrine makes the condemnation of people completely senseless since you have people being punished and condemned for not doing things (not believing and repenting) that they supposedly had no ability to do. Have you even thought about how senseless that is?

Imagine this scenario on judgment day. Someone is standing before Christ giving an account of themselves and they are asked why they didn't repent and put their faith in Christ before they died. Your doctrine gives them an excuse for not repenting and believing: in your view it would be because God didn't give them repentance and faith. That would be a legitimate excuse for them not repenting and believing. But, scripture indicates that no one has any excuse for that. So, all that person could say is that they didn't put their faith in Christ because they chose not to due to loving their sinful lifestyle too much to give it up and due to not wanting anyone to answer to Him and wanting to do their own thing instead.

It makes a lot more sense for people to be punished and condemned for not doing things (repenting and believing) that they had the ability to do, but willingly chose not to do it. That is what God has always done. He has never punished people for disobeying Him unless they knew what He required of them and they had the ability to do it, but chose not to. Yet, your doctrine says He punishes and condemns people for not believing in Christ even if they have no ability to do so. That's as nonsensical as it gets.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Those verses are not speaking of specific people being chosen before the foundation of the world. What those verses mean is that God predetermined and chose that anyone who believed in Christ would be made holy and perfect in His presence and would have good works to do according to what God had ordained.

That is absolutely false. You are butchering the text. If this was true then Paul and Silas would have answered the jailer's question very differently. Remember, the jailer asked what HE had to do to be saved (Acts 16:30). In your view, there was nothing he had to do to be saved. But, that isn't what Paul and Silas said to him. They said he had to "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved". He was responsible to do that. He was not ordained to do that. If he was then Paul and Silas would have answered him by saying "there is nothing you can do to be saved. God does it all. Just wait and see if God chose you to be saved or not and don't worry about it in the meantime. If He did then He will cause (force) you to believe in Jesus and then you'll be saved.".

Wrong. Paul did not say in Ephesians 2:8-9 that salvation is not of our faith, it says salvation is not of our works. Salvation is by God's grace through personal faith in Christ and not of our own works. That's what Paul taught. Paul differentiated between faith and works. Why aren't you differentiating between them?

Having faith in Christ is not among the works that Paul wrote about that someone could boast about if salvation was of works. Faith involves repenting and acknowledging our sins and that we can't save ourselves and that only Jesus can save us through His shed blood and resurrection. Where is boasting in that? The concern over boasting over one's salvation is if someone thinks they can save themselves by doing good works (see James 2:21-25 for examples of good works) or by sacrificing themselves as only Christ could do.

Your Calvinist doctrine denies the responsibility that God gives to man and denies that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2) and that God wants everyone to repent (2 Peter 3:9, Acts 17:30) and to be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-6). Your doctrine makes the condemnation of people completely senseless since you have people being punished and condemned for not doing things (not believing and repenting) that they supposedly had no ability to do. Have you even thought about how senseless that is?

Imagine this scenario on judgment day. Someone is standing before Christ giving an account of themselves and they are asked why they didn't repent and put their faith in Christ before they died. Your doctrine gives them an excuse for not repenting and believing: in your view it would be because God didn't give them repentance and faith. That would be a legitimate excuse for them not repenting and believing. But, scripture indicates that no one has any excuse for that. So, all that person could say is that they didn't put their faith in Christ because they chose not to due to loving their sinful lifestyle too much to give it up and due to not wanting anyone to answer to Him and wanting to do their own thing instead.

It makes a lot more sense for people to be punished and condemned for not doing things (repenting and believing) that they had the ability to do, but willingly chose not to do it. That is what God has always done. He has never punished people for disobeying Him unless they knew what He required of them and they had the ability to do it, but chose not to. Yet, your doctrine says He punishes and condemns people for not believing in Christ even if they have no ability to do so. That's as nonsensical as it gets.

I ultimately rejected Arminianism and Open Theism because they purport that “we save ourselves,” which one cannot resist declaring in interpreting Acts 16:30-31 by such views. As you say, what must “we do” to be saved, which is an “act” by ourselves in your view, no doubt. As much as you try and draw a distinction between faith and works, you actually join them, which is exactly what James did (James 2:20). Arminianism and Open Theism make a mockery of Ephesian 2:8 because they view salvation as a “reward” and not a “gift.” If something is earned, it requires wages and is no longer a gift. For instance, the wages of sin is death, but salvation is a gift and not earned. Francis Turretin’s doctrine on the compound and divided senses address straightens out texts such as Acts 16:30-31. Arminianism and Open Theism make salvation dependent upon the will and exertion of man in defiance of scripture.

So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. (Romans 9:16 ESV)​

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I ultimately rejected Arminianism and Open Theism because they purport that “we save ourselves,” which one cannot resist declaring in interpreting Acts 16:30-31 by such views. As you say, what must “we do” to be saved, which is an “act” by ourselves in your view, no doubt. As much as you try and draw a distinction between faith and works, you actually join them, which is exactly what James did (James 2:20). Arminianism and Open Theism make a mockery of Ephesian 2:8 because they view salvation as a “reward” and not a “gift.” If something is earned, it requires wages and is no longer a gift. For instance, the wages of sin is death, but salvation is a gift and not earned. Francis Turretin’s doctrine on the compound and divided senses address straightens out texts such as Acts 16:30-31. Arminianism and Open Theism make salvation dependent upon the will and exertion of man in defiance of scripture.

You're not making any sense here. If someone offers you a gift that you can choose to accept or not and you choose to accept it, is it no longer a gift after you accept it and it becomes a reward instead? Of course not. It's still a gift if you choose to accept it. So, your claim that those who believe in free will claim that salvation is a reward rather than a gift is unfounded.

So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. (Romans 9:16 ESV)

I don't think you understand what this verse means. It doesn't mean that man isn't required to do anything to obtain God's mercy, it means that man had no say in the matter when it comes to who God has mercy on. Man doesn't decide who God will have mercy on, only God does.

Are you taking into account that Romans 11:30-32 says that God wants to have mercy on all people when you interpret Romans 9:16? It doesn't appear so. God could have chosen to only have mercy on some and not others without giving man any say in the matter if He wanted. But, since He loves the whole world (John 3:16, 1 John 2:1-2) and wants to have mercy on everyone, He gave everyone the opportunity to be saved and receive His mercy and He made that conditional upon people humbling themselves by repenting of their sins and putting their faith in Christ as their Lord and Savior.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

You're not making any sense here. If someone offers you a gift that you can choose to accept or not and you choose to accept it, is it no longer a gift after you accept it and it becomes a reward instead? Of course not. It's still a gift if you choose to accept it. So, your claim that those who believe in free will claim that salvation is a reward rather than a gift is unfounded.

I don't think you understand what this verse means. It doesn't mean that man isn't required to do anything to obtain God's mercy, it means that man had no say in the matter when it comes to who God has mercy on. Man doesn't decide who God will have mercy on, only God does.

Are you taking into account that Romans 11:30-32 says that God wants to have mercy on all people when you interpret Romans 9:16? It doesn't appear so. God could have chosen to only have mercy on some and not others without giving man any say in the matter if He wanted. But, since He loves the whole world (John 3:16, 1 John 2:1-2) and wants to have mercy on everyone, He gave everyone the opportunity to be saved and receive His mercy and He made that conditional upon people humbling themselves by repenting of their sins and putting their faith in Christ as their Lord and Savior.

What I stated makes perfect sense, even if it went over your head. Your position is we have to believe in Christ before we are saved. That is initially an exercise of our will, making salvation a reward for our belief. But the scriptures affirm salvation is a gift and not a reward. And Romans 9:16 says “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.” This means it's God’s will that chooses whom he saves, not man’s. As to Romans 11:30-32, we’ve already been through that and determined the context does not affirm any universal application of the word translated “all” because Paul already stated: “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” Arminianism is a heretical doctrine.

 

[FredVB]

I don't know enough about it to be certain of a position, though I learned in church one understanding of it. But I am much more sure of most missing something important and I don't believe God wants it to be missed. God hates the destructiveness to this earth, those who bring that should rightfully be destroyed, and the collapse of Mystery Babylon is closest, and it is for those who would be godly to get out from there, they should not be there. They must flee the cities where collapse is coming and it will come soon. They should be in groups finding places away from those together, and avoid destructiveness.

 

[Christian Gedge]

Bump!
I forgot (my bad ) The man himself mentioned Daniel’s 70 weeks. Yes, Jesus! Any guesses where?