Observations About Free-willian Bible Interpretation And Free-willian Writings

[Kermos]

There isnt a scripture in the bible that says man has a freewill because its a myth !

And that's the truth!!!

King Jesus says "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) and "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19, includes salvation).

To claim otherise is to add to scripture, and it is written "do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar" (Proverbs 30:6).

 

[Kermos]

Your hilarious

First of all, I never said that repentance was of man. We can only repent by God??s grace. Second, your acting like Paul was talking to two different people in that passage. Notice the word YOU in those verses.


"Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,"
Romans 2:4-5 NASB1995

The same group whom God is leading to repentance is the same group that is refusing to repent out of their own stubbornness. They are resisting God??s grace.

Salvation is no laughing matter, BNR32FAN.

To dissuade your confusion, I state unequivocally, right now, that Paul is describing two kinds of people in the early part of Romans chapter 2. In Romans 2:4-6, unrepentant persons who are storing up wrath for themselves in the day of wrath. In Romans 2:7, persons led to and granted repentance. There is some flexiblitly

Paul did not write "know that the kindness of God leads you to repentance" as an indicative statement, rather, Paul wrote an interrogative in Romans 2:4; therefore, Paul did not write that God those persons to repentance, rather, Paul asked whether they did not know that God leads to repentance. If those persons did not know it, then those persons are unrepentant.

God can use the interrogative words of "do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance" (Romans 2:4) to lead some people to repentance, so for such persons that are led to repentance then such persons come to know that the riches of God's kindness led such persons to repentance. Yet, there are other people who fail to understand the words, so such persons are unrepentant.

Oh, look, BNR32FAN, the word "grace" is absent from Romans 2:4-5 which you quoted, just as this post clearly shows.

Therefore, your claim to associate free will with Romans 2:4-5 is non-sequitor.

You are trying to associate "grace" with repentance where "grace" is not mentioned in Romans 2:4-5.

In Ephesians 2:8-10, the word "grace" is mentioned, and "grace" is associated with salvation.

You are adding the word "grace" where "grace" is not mentioned, so you are adding to scripture, and adding to scripture is lying.

 

[Kermos]

Ok let??s make this real simple. In Romans 2:4-5 is God's patience and kindness leading these people to repentance?

No. Paul did not write "patience and kindness" respecting the leading in Romans 2:4.

When God leads a person to repentance, then no one can thwart God's purpose (Job 42:2); therefore, your assertion that "God's patience and kindness" is "leading these people to repentance" collides against Paul's writing "your stubbornness and unrepentant heart" in Romans 2:5 as answer to Romans 2:4.

For more details of import, please see this post about this topic of early Romans chapter 2.

 

[Kermos]

Thanks, Kermos. . .we are in agreement.

I presented a limited free will, limited by our fallen sinful disposition.
Our fallen sinful disposition does not allow us to choose God, for it prefers self over God.

Yes, all glory is God's! For with man, salvation is impossible.

You wrote "I presented a limited free will", so I have a couple of questions for you, but first, some foundation needs to be laid.

I have written on this site that I use "free will" to indicate the purported ability of man to choose Jesus unto salvation.

The Word of God states "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) as well as "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19), so there is NO choice that man can make toward God for thus declares King Jesus.

Now, to the questions,

1) what scripture do you cite, that has not already been shown to be false in this thread, as support for man's so-called "limited free will"? I write "so-called" because there is no scripture that indicates God imparts free will to man; therefore, no impartation of free will means no impartation of "limited free will".

2) what is your purpose to claim that man has a "limited free will"?

 

[Kermos]

So then your answer to my question is that in Romans 2:4 God is not leading these people to repentance? Paul specifically stated that His kindness and patience is leading them to repentance. Your saying that He is not. That??s a contradiction. The verses you quoted only state that no one can come to repentance without God??s grace. I don??t deny that at all.

First, please see this post which specifically contains the answer to your question.

Second, just as this post shows, Paul used an interrogative in Romans 2:4, so Paul did not "specifically" state "that His kindness and patience is leading them to repentance" as an indicative which you purport; furthermore, just as the referenced post shows, the following verse of Romans 2:5 is indicative with "your stubbornness and unrepentant heart".

Third, you are the practioner trying to add the word "grace" into Romans 2:4-5, yet God has me here telling you the word "grace" is not in the passage (again, please follow the two above referenced posts).

Fourth, your additive interpretation of Romans 2:4-5 causes a contradiction between Romans 2:4 and Romans 2:5, just as has been presented.

Fifth, I quoted the Apostles who said "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance to life" (Acts 11:18), and I do not see the word "grace" in their statement.

Now, BNR32FAN, to your purpose. You have cited Romans 2:4-5 as support for free will; however, free will is absent from Romans 2:4-5.

 

[Clare73]

You wrote "I presented a limited free will", so I have a couple of questions for you, but first, some foundation needs to be laid.

I have written on this site that I use "free will" to indicate the purported ability of man to choose Jesus unto salvation.
However, that is not how free will is used in the English language or philosophy.
The Word of God states "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) as well as "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19), so there is NO choice that man can make toward God for thus declares King Jesus.

Now, to the questions,
1) what scripture do you cite, that has not already been shown to be false in this thread, as support for man's so-called "limited free will"? I write "so-called" because
there is no scripture that indicates God imparts free will to man; therefore, no impartation of free will means no impartation of "limited free will".

Keep in mind that also no Scripture indicates God imparts toes to man.

2) what is your purpose to claim that man has a "limited free will"?

To indicate that man can make natural moral choices.

We can make moral choices, but not all moral choices.

We can choose to be kind, not to murder, to honor our parents, etc., but we cannot choose to be sinless.

Likewise, in the same category, we cannot choose the things that come from the Spirit--the gospel, faith, repentance, etc., without the Spirit, because we do not prefer them, they are foolishness to us (1 Corinthians 2:14).

All spiritual choices to God must be enabled by the Holy Spirit.

But we can make moral choices in the natural realm, like not running stop signs, not robbing stores, giving an honest day's work for a day's pay, etc.

Does this help?

We are in agreement, it's just different nomenclature.

 

[Kermos]

Hello FreeGrace2, I have read and reread your post over several days, and this response spans seven posts to reveal that which God has me write to you.

This is incorrect thinking. The Bible defines "work" as earning wages, from Rom 4:4,5. Thinking doesn't earn a wage. I know what you'll come back with; that people are paid to think. No, they are paid to GET RESULTS (profit, etc) FROM THEIR THINKING. That is different.
Your claims are illegitimate. Thinking isn't a work as defined by Scripture. I understand words as defined by Scripture, and not some calvinist.

Let's review the full quotation for your citation of Paul, "Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Romans 4:4-5, the space In "due. But" separates the verses).

Interestingly, Paul did not write a "work" is exclusively "earning wages" in the passage, so "work" is not exclusively defined as "earning wages" herein.

Paul could not write that because the Lord says "he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his works may be manifested as having been wrought in God" (John 3:21).

Based on your definition of "work", you definitely create a collision between Romans 4:4-5 and John 3:21; nonetheless, your definitional exclusivity of "work" fails as a precept of man resulting in worship in vain (Matthew 15:9).

You have added to scripture again.

From the passage, a "work" results in something "due", based on Romans 4:4.

A statement among free willians to their prospective recruits is "if you accept Jesus in your heart, then He must forgive your sins and save you", and the word "accept" represents a choice.

Look at "must" which indicates a requirement upon Jesus to pay the recruit's wages, that which is "due" for the "work" of "accept", specifically the two things "due" are "forgive your sins" and "save you".

Moving on to Romans 4:5, Paul used the word "believes" with a beautifully detailed description of Lord Jesus.

Paul wrote elsewhere that belief is "not of yourselves" (Ephesians 2:8), so the "believes" in Romans 4:5 is not controlled by "the one who does not work".

Now, pressing on to the One Who controls the "believes" in Romans 4:5. The Apostle Paul wrote belief is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8) and we believers are His work (Ephesians 2:10).

Behold, Paul wrote "we are His work" (Ephesians 2:10), so this "work" of God's is everything about us, including faith/belief being God's work/gift in man. Ephesians 2:8-10 is a whole passage to be taken together.

Watch how Paul's use of the word "work" is in accord with the Christ's use of the word "work".

Jesus Christ speaks a specific definition with "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent" (John 6:29), so Lord and God says "that you believe in Him whom He has sent" is defined as "the work of God".

The word "is" used by Jesus establishes the equality, the definition, relation in John 6:29.

Behold, the word "WORK" therein. See the word "BELIEVE". Powerfully Jesus defines and proclaims righteous belief/faith is God's work in God's children.

God controls righteous faith/belief in persons (John 6:29).

WORK AS THOUGHT IN SCRIPTURE

Anything "done" (do, did) is a work. A common refrain among free wilians is "all you have to do is accept Jesus", and there is the word "do" in your unbiblical declaration - that "accept" (do) represents a "work" of a choice.

Anything "made" (make, making) is a work. Another refrain among free willians is "I made a choice for Jesus", and there is the word "made" in your unbiblical declaration - that "choice" (made) represents a "work" of a choice.

An act (action) is a "work".

Here are some more quotes of the Word of God that show thoughts are "works":

• "you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faith; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others" (Matthew 23:23).
• "You shall love the Lord your God" "with all your mind" (Matthew 22:37).

The word "justice" as a noun represents a "work" inside a body as a thought (Jesus used the noun form of "justice" in Matthew 23:23), yet an act of justice represents a "work" outside a body as an external action.

Jesus says they "should have done" "faith". The word "done" represents a work because "doing something" is a work. The same goes for mercy.

The word "faith" in Matthew 23:23 is a noun meaning belief, and belief is a condition of a person - including a person's state of mind - a person's very thoughts; moreover, the word "believe" is "belief" in action which means these two words are intimately connected, so the "believe" in John 6:29 is inextricably bound to the word "belief" resulting in righteous belief/faith in Jesus whom the Father has sent being the work of God.

In Matthew 22:37, the act of love that Jesus speaks of includes a "work" of the mind's thoughts.

The Word of God expresses "thought" as "work"!

The mind thinks; moreover, the word "thinks" is a verb indicating "work".

Thinking is a "work". Thoughts are "works". Jesus conveys these facts.

A choice is the mind doing a selection; therefore, a choice is a work.

Apparently, in contrast to your postulation, you do not understand words as defined by scripture.

Not only that, you prophesied "I know what you'll come back with; that people are paid to think" which makes you a false prophet because I did not.

Part 1 of 7

 

[Kermos]

Part 2 of 7

And once again we see more incorrect thinking.

Here is the point: to "refuse" to do something inherently shows an ability to do that something. You can argue otherwise, but that would be total folly.

If I have no ability to do something, it would be utter folly and stupidity to "refuse" to do it. Even if someone was ordering me to do it.

If you don't understand that very simple fact, I don't see how there can be any kind of reasonable discussion with you.

You flip-flopped. You wrote "Thinking isn't a work as defined by Scripture" as an earlier statement in your post, but now you wrote "to 'refuse' to do something inherently shows an ability to do that something" as a later statement in your post.

Before digging deeper into your flip-flop, I need to explain about your use of the word "shows" in your later statement. "Shows" means literally exhibited (explicit); on the other hand, an "implication" occurs when a person makes an inference upon a subject matter (implicit). The text does not literarily literally state that man has the ability to "allow"; therefore, the word "shows" fails literally, yet the word "implies" succeeds literally. For example, "the house for sale shows beautifully" indicates a literal exhibition. Your word "shows" is broken vocabulary, and the grammatically correct word is "implies".

Returning to dig deeper into your flip-flop, in your later statement, in effect, you wrote of "do that something" being imposed upon the opposite of "refuse", for which "opposite of 'refuse'" means "allow".

Restating your thesis more succinctly, you convey that "refuse" implies an ability to "do" an "allow" by a person, so your implication causes "allow" to be a "work".

Your earlier statement expresses the "refuse" thought is not a "work", but your later statement effectively conveys the "allow" thought is a "work".

You contradicted yourself. You contradict scripture.

I have repeatedly stated that I use free will to indicate man's purported ability to choose Jesus (see the first paragraph of the original post), and I have pointed out in Scripture that people "reject" (refuse) Jesus in their default condition (Romans 1:20, Romans 3:10-12, Romans 3:19, Romans 5:12).

I am using "refuse" as a near synonym for "reject", and I am using "allow" as a near synonym for "accept".

You convey that the ability to "refuse" implies the ability to "allow" in scripture, and as soon as you apply your implication, then you are adding to scripture.

Even broader in scope, a person making an implication about scripture is adding text that does not exist in the original.

To "refuse" something only shows that the something was "refused". That's all. Full stop. You are adding to the semantics to "refuse".

No place, absolutely no place in scripture does it state that man can accept (allow) Jesus.

This means that men are walking around in rejection of Jesus until and unless the work of God (John 6:29) birthing a new man (John 3:3-8).

All free-willians exist in folly for refusing (rejecting) the Word for the Word says "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) and "I chose you out of the world" (John 15-19, includes salvation).

Part 2 of 7

 

[Kermos]

Part 3 of 7

Your incorrect thinking is again seen here. You have inserted your calvinist talking points, which are NOT found in Scripture. You only PRESUME that "such people havig an evil nature can ONLY refuse to believe because they were not converted by God". You wrongly PRESUME that regeneration precedes faith.
Scripture teaches otherwise, and very clearly.

Eph 2:5 equates being "made alive", which is regeneration, with "being saved". So, they go together. Can't have one without the other. And there are NO verses that i indicate there can be one without the other.

Then, in v.8, we read, "we are saved by grace THROUGH FAITH". There it is. iow, to be saved, there HAS TO BE FAITH. So regeneration requires faith as well.

God exclusively controls regeneration (John 3:3-8).

God exclusively controls righteous faith in persons (John 6:29).

Free-willians philosophize that they control faith such that they can cause themselves to have faith (believe) in Jesus resulting in their salvation.

You wrote "You wrongly PRESUME that regeneration precedes faith" which is irrelevant to the fact that God exclusively controls both regeneration (John 3:3-8) and faith (John 6:29) because man controls neither regeneration nor faith in Jesus.

You tried to subtract from the fullness of Ephesians 2:8 by only quoting the first phrase, but here is more of the verse "by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8).

Behold, faith is not of yourselves (Ephesians 2:8).

Paul is in accord with Jesus Christ's words about righteous faith, after all, "that you believe in Him whom He has sent" (John 6:29) is a complete, finished package, not a work of man, but the package is exclusively dependent as "the work of God" (John 6:29).

Again, your statement about the order of regeneration and faith is irrelevant because the Truth is that God controls both regeneration and righteous faith (John 14:6, John 3:3-8, John 6:29, Ephesians 2:8-10).

In your free willian philosophy, you strive to strike (subtract) the very "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent" (John 6:29) Word of God.

You exhibit linguistic ineptitude, and you promote logic fallacy, as is shown.

Part 3 of 7

 

[Kermos]

Part 4 of 7

This appears to be accusing God of irrational behavior, if He commands people to do things that they can't do. Nonsense. Absurd.
It is reasonable to command a person without legs to stand up? That's what you are advocating. They can't do it, neither can they refuse to do it.

By refusing, they are admiting that they CAN do it. But it appears you don't really understand the meaning of certain words.

Based upon your words:

• You do not believe in the Power of God (1 Corinthians 1:24) to heal the lame (Acts 3:6, Mark 3:1-6).
• You do not understand that God uses the lame to display the works of God (John 9:3).

It is to God's glory when the children of God bear fruit/works/deeds of the Holy Spirit!

The children of God can do good works, but these deeds are wrought in God (John 3:21).

According to free willian philosophy, man controls himself to do good deeds, so, by extension, your free willian philosophy results in you having your reward in full (Matthew 6:5, Matthew 6:16), your own glory here on earth now, not eternity.

Your so-called "good deeds" in free willian philosophy can be choosing Jesus at an altar call or layout of a church bulletin, etc.

Your free willian thought process of trying to instruct the Lord about who to save exists outside of the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16).

Part 4 of 7

 

[Kermos]

Part 5 of 7

Why do you demand that your own "pet words" be included in verses before you will believe or accept the obvious meaning?

I do not add words into scripture, so your "pet words" accusation is false. You have not provided a single instance of me adding to or subtracting from scripture.

As is clearly evident in this response to your post, you are shown trying to add words into scripture, and you exhibit the action of subtracting words from scripture. God has me use words to show you exactly where you tell God that God's Word is not enough.

Part 5 of 7

 

[Kermos]

Part 6 of 7

This is just ridiculous. I've done no such thing. It is apparent that you don't really understand very much of the Bible.

Joshua 24-
14 ??Now fear the LORD and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your ancestors worshiped beyond the Euphrates River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD.
15 But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.??

If you don't see a freely made choice here, you have your eyes closed.

These 2 verses totally destroy the calvinist theory that free will doesn't exist.


This is pure nonsense. You have no idea what words even mean, and you think YOU can judge my "condition". It's your condition that is in need of desperate help.

Joshua 24:14 is a command, and the command does not convey ability to choose, so there is no choice indicated therein. The command is not "you can choose God so serve the LORD", rather the actual command is "Now fear the LORD and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your ancestors worshiped beyond the Euphrates River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD" (Joshua 24:14).

Joshua expresses a conditional logic statement in Joshua 24:15, and a conditional logic statement is normally an IF/THEN construct, for example:

IF condition THEN predicate

Stated in a more Joshua 24:15 focused fashion.

IF you_do_this that_will_happen

Thus, the conditional expresses an action in the condition (you_do_this), and the effectual result in the predicate (that_will_happen).

A conditional does not convey ability to the recipient of the conditional.

Now, the conditional logic statement Joshua expressed was "If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD" (Joshua 24:15), so the condition (you_do_this) is "to serve the LORD is disagreeable in your eyes"; furthermore, Joshua 24:15 contains no reference to "choice" nor "free will" towards God . The condition Joshua expressed states the condition/state-of-being/nature of the person.

Disagreeable does not mean choose.

In the predicate Joshua provides only false gods to choose among for those people whose nature is against the LORD, for Joshua said "choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living" (Joshua 24:15), and the word "choose" in this verse is translated from בָּחר (bachar) (Strong's Number 977).

Finaly, Joshua states "but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD", and there is no reference to "choice" nor "free will" towards God (Joshua 24:15).

A state of being, "disagreeable", is mentioned in Joshua 24:15, and action, "serve", is mentioned in Joshua 24:15.

Regarding "serve", only people who the Power of God causes to "serve" the LORD can "serve" YHWH for thus says the Word of God "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5).

The Messiah's words are life (John 6:63).

There is no choice towards God mentioned in Joshua 24:14-15.

You must implicate "choice toward God" among Joshua's words thus making him to say something that he does not say; therefore, you are adding to scripture again.

Part 6 of 7

 

[Kermos]

Part 7 of 7

Another example of totally misunderstanding what the Bible says. Look at the context. What did Jesus choose those 11 disciples for?

16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit??fruit that will last??and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.

Election is for service.

What do you say about John 6:70 - Then Jesus replied, ??Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!??

Destroys the calvinist doctrine of election, huh.

Respecting John 6:70, this post in this current thread that God had me make to you addresses your question. You are now circling back to a settled issue just like the original post points out this type of free-wllian work.

In John 15:16, the word "appointed" occurrs after the conjunction "and", so the word "and" separates the preceding clause about "choosing" and the subsequent clause about "appointing".

Complete thoughts occur on both sides of the word "and".

A complete thought of "You did not choose Me, but I chose you" is before the "and" while another complete thought of "I appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you" is after the "and".

According to logic, concurrently both the complete thought before the "and" is true as well as the complete thought after the "and" is true.

The "and" does not establish a requisite mutual dependency between each of the complete thoughts.

The "choosing" clause and "appointing" clause can legitimately be taken cohesively.

The "choosing" clause and the "appointing" clause can legitimately be taken individually.

The linguistics of the complete thoughts on each side of the "and" shows that the "choosing" clause can accurately stand independently.

Because of the linguistic construct employed by the Christ, bearing fruit is tied to "appointed"; in other words, He uses "appointed" here such that appointment is for service.

Continuing with the linguistic construct employed by the Christ, the "choosing" by Lord Jesus in "You did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) includes salvation because in the same passage Jesus focuses upon His choosing for salvation when He says "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19).

Notice the "I chose you" phrase occurring in both John 15:16 and John 15:19, so He ties the two statements together.

Since 'out of the world" (John 15:19) can only mean one thing which is "in to the Kingdom of God", then the Lord's choosing of persons for salvation is exclusively His election, not man's choosing of Jesus, but Lord Jesus Christ's choosing alone because He says "You did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) .

Election is for salvation and service and to be heard by the Father and friendship with God (John 15:15 which snuggles right up with John 15:16).

Praise be to the merciful Christ for He is the Teacher of the Christian teaching that in His glorious power He exclusively chooses God's children to be saved from the wrath of God!

You presented your interpretation such that you constrain the words of Christ down to "I chose you that you would go and bear fruit" thus you subtract "and I appointed you" for John 15:16.

Free willian folly leads to choosing a god that is not Lord Jesus Christ, and the proof is that Lord Jesus Christ says "You did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) and "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19, includes salvation).

 

[Kermos]

First, why do you demand words of YOUR OWN choosing?

There is no place in the Word of God that states that man was imparted a free will, so you must add your words into the Word of God to achieve free will; moreover, your free willian philosophy leads to everlasting punishment because of this fact (John 3:36).

I quote the Word of God as moved by the Spirit of God, so your question is non-sequitur.

What do you think "free will" means? It seems you don't have a clue. What you do have is a very incorrect notion of it. In fact, Calvinists (I'm NO Arminian) tend to describe free will as some kind of "power" or "force" that does stuff.

No, that is ridiculous. Free will is nothing more or less than an opportunity to choose between available options.

That being said, Calvinists like to use the example of weather, and ask if one's free will can change it. Well, that's stupid, because weather is out of man's control, and there is no option to choose different weather. So the "example" fails.

You are babbling

Did you even look at the first paragraph of the original post?

Here it is:

Largely, I use free will to mean man choosing toward God, emphatically Lord Jesus Christ.

We absolutely do know that God has given man the opportunity to believe the Gospel, from Titus 2:11 - For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.

Clear as can be. God's grace has appeared to everyone and OFFERS salvation to everyone.

Please consider this: for an offer to be legitimate, it has to be available.

When something is offered to someone, that shows an opportunity to choose whether or not to take it.

Do you believe that God's offers can be illegitimate?

Now, you can disagree with all this, but can you prove any of it to be wrong?

"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men" (Titus 2:11).

You wrote "offers salvation to all people", but the word "offers" does not occur in Titus 2:11.

Oh look, you've added to and/or subtracted from scripture again.

When Paul wrote "bringing salvation to all men" (Titus 2:11), then he clearly shows that God does does the work of salvation for all men saved from the wrath of God.

Not "offering salvation to all men" as based upon your twisting of scripture.

Truly "bringing salvation to all men" (Titus 2:11) as written by Paul.

The "all men" in Titus 2:11 includes exclusively God's chosen persons for salvation (John 15:16, John 15:19, John 3:3-8, John 3:21, John 6:29).

Based upon your interpretation of Titus 2:11, you have unbelievers in salvation because you convey that "all men" is every man everywhere, yet every man is not a believer, for example Judas Iscariot.

It appears that you are a universalist such that all paths lead to God, based on your free willian interpretation of Titus 2:11.

 

[Kermos]

I was paraphrasing, I forgot the word ??if??. I don??t see how that affects the statement He made unless your implying that He was referring to a hypothetical impossibility in which there would be no point in even mentioning what happens to people who don??t abide in Him if that is an impossible scenario. And what does He say in the very next verse?


??If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.??
????John?? ??15:7?? ??NASB1995????

So evidently even His 11 faithful apostles were capable of turning away otherwise He wouldn??t have said ??IF you abide in Me??.

"Impossibility" you wrote defiantly against the Word of God.

Lord Jesus says "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26). It is impossible to abide in Jesus for persons apart from Jesus (John 15:5).

Respecting all the abiding that Jesus speaks of in John 15, people can abide in Jesus exclusively by the power of Jesus, the Vine (John 15:5), for He says "apart from Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5); therefore, Jesus' words serve as a promise for His people, His branches (John 15:5), that we do and will abide in Him.

A PROMISE made by Jesus to all His disciples including Matthias and Joseph.

"'Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us - beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us - one of these [must] become a witness with us of His resurrection.' So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias." (Acts 1:21-23)

If you say that Matthias and/or Joseph were not at the supper recorded in John 15, then you call ALL 11 apostles liars because they were ALL present when the Apostle Peter spoke the above quote (Acts 1:13).

To all people that are not the branches, all the abiding that Jesus spoke of in John 15 serves as a warning that such people do not abide in Jesus.

A WARNING made by Jesus to all free-willians.

Disciples are clean because He says "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you" (John 15:3), and He says this as a prelude to all the abiding in John 15, so clearly the "if" conditions in John 15:6-7 can mean a promise or a warning. There is no conveyance of ability within these logic "if" statements.

No one can snatch His people, a.k.a. His sheep (John 10:27), a.k.a. His branches (John 15:5), out of His Hand (John 10:28). That "no one" is without exception.

When Jesus causes people to abide in Himself as He conveys in John 15, then He causes a permanent condition for no man can separate that which God joins (Mark 10:9) - not even the man himself whom Jesus causes to abide in Jesus.

It is impossible for man to abide in Jesus by man's own power; on the other hand, it is possible for the Power of God to cause man to abide in Jesus (Matthew 19:26).

When you wrote "So evidently...", then you were adding to the Word of God.

No capability of "turning away" was included in in the Word of God, despite your fervent wishes.

Apart from Christ we can do nothing to please God because we are stained by sin. We cannot bear fruit. Only by remaining in Christ can our fruit be pleasing to God because our sins have been forgiven. Apparently according to verse 2 The Father cuts off every branch in Christ that does not bear fruit. This means that while we are in Christ we have a choice to serve God or not to serve Him and if we choose not to serve Him we will be cut off from Christ.

These concepts for John 15:6-7 also apply with John 15:2 -

• WARNING and PROMISE is represented in John 15:2.
• No one can snatch His branches off of His Trunk (John 10:28, John 15:5).

Notice that Christ does NOT say that "there are branches in Me that do not bear fruit" anywhere in "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit" (John 15:2), so the difference between your words and Jesus' words is that Jesus did not say nor imply there are branches in Him being removed; therefore, you are adding to the Word of God.

When you wrote "we have a choice", then at that point you rejected to the very Word of God! The Word of God says "You did not choose Me but I chose you" (John 15:16) and "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19, includes salvation).
The children of God ABIDING in Jesus is the wonderful act of the Spirit of God to the glory of God (John 15:5, John 15:26-27, John 15:20-21)!

Spiritually and linguistically, when Jesus says "if you abide in Me" (in John chapter 15), then the Lord expresses the RESULTS OF THE ABIDING (if statement predicate) occur for the ACTION OF THE ABIDING (if statement conditional); furthermore, such is the full extent of "if you abide in Me" (John 15:6-7).

 

[BNR32FAN]

"Impossibility" you wrote defiantly against the Word of God.

Lord Jesus says "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26). It is impossible to abide in Jesus for persons apart from Jesus (John 15:5).

Respecting all the abiding that Jesus speaks of in John 15, people can abide in Jesus exclusively by the power of Jesus, the Vine (John 15:5), for He says "apart from Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5); therefore, Jesus' words serve as a promise for His people, His branches (John 15:5), that we do and will abide in Him.

A PROMISE made by Jesus to all His disciples including Matthias and Joseph.

"'Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us - beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us - one of these [must] become a witness with us of His resurrection.' So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias." (Acts 1:21-23)

If you say that Matthias and/or Joseph were not at the supper recorded in John 15, then you call ALL 11 apostles liars because they were ALL present when the Apostle Peter spoke the above quote (Acts 1:13).

To all people that are not the branches, all the abiding that Jesus spoke of in John 15 serves as a warning that such people do not abide in Jesus.

A WARNING made by Jesus to all free-willians.

Disciples are clean because He says "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you" (John 15:3), and He says this as a prelude to all the abiding in John 15, so clearly the "if" conditions in John 15:6-7 can mean a promise or a warning. There is no conveyance of ability within these logic "if" statements.

No one can snatch His people, a.k.a. His sheep (John 10:27), a.k.a. His branches (John 15:5), out of His Hand (John 10:28). That "no one" is without exception.

When Jesus causes people to abide in Himself as He conveys in John 15, then He causes a permanent condition for no man can separate that which God joins (Mark 10:9) - not even the man himself whom Jesus causes to abide in Jesus.

It is impossible for man to abide in Jesus by man's own power; on the other hand, it is possible for the Power of God to cause man to abide in Jesus (Matthew 19:26).

When you wrote "So evidently...", then you were adding to the Word of God.

No capability of "turning away" was included in in the Word of God, despite your fervent wishes.



These concepts for John 15:6-7 also apply with John 15:2 -

• WARNING and PROMISE is represented in John 15:2.
• No one can snatch His branches off of His Trunk (John 10:28, John 15:5).

Notice that Christ does NOT say that "there are branches in Me that do not bear fruit" anywhere in "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit" (John 15:2), so the difference between your words and Jesus' words is that Jesus did not say nor imply there are branches in Him being removed; therefore, you are adding to the Word of God.

When you wrote "we have a choice", then at that point you rejected to the very Word of God! The Word of God says "You did not choose Me but I chose you" (John 15:16) and "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19, includes salvation).
The children of God ABIDING in Jesus is the wonderful act of the Spirit of God to the glory of God (John 15:5, John 15:26-27, John 15:20-21)!

Spiritually and linguistically, when Jesus says "if you abide in Me" (in John chapter 15), then the Lord expresses the RESULTS OF THE ABIDING (if statement predicate) occur for the ACTION OF THE ABIDING (if statement conditional); furthermore, such is the full extent of "if you abide in Me" (John 15:6-7).

Not interested in discussing with you any further.

 

[Kermos]

I never said any such thing. That??s a false accusation.

You did, and now you deny a central theme that you have been promoting of your free-willian philosopy.

You removed the part of the post explaining that abiding in Christ by a child of God is dependent upon Christ, and that part of the post specifically reads:

Finally, about verse 7, you wrote "Using the word IF indicates a condition that must be met", and this is true; however, the conditional does not impart ability, so that makes the IF logic statement dependent upon the Christ Himself because He says "apart from Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5).

This shows that you convey, in verse 7, you convey that persons can remain in Christ of their own power apart from the Power of God (1 Corinthians 1:24) in direct opposition to the Word expressing that persons remain in Christ by the very Power of God (1 Corinthians 1:24).

"Free-will" is not in the passage (John 15:6-7), but you convey that it is even though it is absent.

"Choose" is not in the passage(John 15:6-7), not even conjugates for "choose", but you convey that it is even though it is absent.

The John 15:4-10 passage is the perfect example of God in control of man's salvation.

The passage is the perfect example of God working fruit in we believers.

And, the Word of God says with relevance to John 15:4-10 when He says "he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God" (John 3:21).

So, all the good fruit, the good deeds, of we believers are wrought in God!

Anybody who claims otherwise is an attempted thief and liar.

THERE IS NO SCRIPTURE THAT STATES MAN HAS A FREE WILL TO CHOOSE JESUS.

In fact, you, as a mere man, try to void the very Word of God that includes the words "choose" and "chose" that occurred at nearly the same time as Jesus says "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away" (John 15:6) and "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you" (John 15:7). Here following are the places that the very Word of God uses the words "choose" and "chose".

There is no level that a person can choose Lord Jesus because He says "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) as well as "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19, includes salvation) - Jesus, being God, did not provide any exception for choosing toward Jesus. Lord Jesus speaks to all believers in all time because He also said "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word" (John 17:20)! All these words of Jesus are at the same supper! All glory is God's! With man, salvation is impossible (Matthew 19:25-26)! All glory in the salvation of man is God's (John 15:5, Isaiah 42:8, Psalm 3:8)!

 

[Kermos]

If I have a rabbit in my hand and I say no one can snatch this rabbit from my hand does that mean that I said I cannot throw the rabbit from my hand or that I said the rabbit cannot jump from my hand?

Bad example because you ignore the first part of v.28.

Jesus said "I give them (believers, per John 5:24) eternal life and they shall never perish".

iow, the RESULT of being eternal life is that the recipient shall never perish.

But you have twisted Jesus' words into this: "I give them eternal life, and if they don't jump out of My hand, they will never perish."

The red words are what you have added to the text. That's eisegesis.

When a person believes in Christ, they are given eternal life. Therefore, all who have believed shall never perish.

Lord Jesus says "no one" when He says "no one will snatch them out of My hand" (John 10:28).

BNR32FAN, you try to subtract Jesus' words when you convey that a man can remove himself out of Jesus' Hand.

Lord Jesus says "the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out" (John 6:37 and of "coming to Jesus" He also says this is manifest as "wrought in God" [John 3:21]).

BNR32FAN, you try to subtract Jesus' words when you convey that God throws the children of God away.

BNR32FAN, FreeGrace2's assertion that you add to John 10:28 is a viable point, or it could also be asserted that you subtract "they will never perish" (John 10:28) from the Word of God.

 

[Kermos]

Then your denying Paul??s words by saying that God??s kindness and patience was not actually leading them to repentance because only by grace can they be led to repentance. So your denying Paul??s inspired words.

According to you, God "misses the mark" respecting God leading people to repentance because all do not repent.

You accuse God of sin.

Paul wrote "that the kindness of God leads" (Romans 2:4).

You essentially wrote "that the kindness and patience of God leads".

You added "patience" into Paul's inspired words.

You persist in missing the mark when you promoted that God's grace leads those people to repentance mentioned in Romans 2:4-5; however, Paul wrote "not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance" (Romans 2:4); therefore, you say "grace", yet Paul wrote "kindness".

You added "grace" to Paul's inspired words.

Paul specifically wrote "not knowing" in his question (Romans 2:4), so Paul's answer shows that they didn't know that the kindness of God leads people to repentance as well as that God was not leading those people to repentance for they had "unrepentant heart" (Romans 2:5).

You converted Paul's interrogative in Romans 2:4 into an indicative statement; in other words, in effect you change Paul's question in Romans 2:4 into declaration statement of "you know that the kindness of God leads you to repentance".

You added to and subtracted from Paul's inspired words.

 

[Kermos]

Your problem is that you think that if a person is granted grace they cannot fall away. In Galatians 5:4 Paul specifically states ??you have been severed from Christ, you have fallen from grace. Just like Jesus says in John 15:2 He cuts off every branch in Me that beareth not fruit. I know I??ve pointed out Luke 13:6-9

??And He began telling this parable: ??A man had a fig tree which had been planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it and did not find any. And he said to the vineyard-keeper, ??Behold, for three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree without finding any. Cut it down! Why does it even use up the ground??? And he answered and said to him, ??Let it alone, sir, for this year too, until I dig around it and put in fertilizer; and if it bears fruit next year, fine; but if not, cut it down.????????
????Luke?? ??13:6-9?? ??NASB1995????

Again more evidence that even tho Christ is working to save someone the outcome is still uncertain whether or not they will bear fruit or if be cut down.

Paul wrote "fallen from grace", not "fallen out of grace", in "You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace" (Galatians 5:4); therefore, the "You" Paul mentions never were in God's grace.

The parable recorded in Luke 13:6-9 is a heavenly message about God's patience for God is patient until the time of the Gentiles completes (Romans 11:25). There is no mention of anyone actually being severed out of the grace of God in the Luke 13:6-9 passage.

The Luke 13:6-9 passage serves as a wonderful promise from God for the recipients of God's grace, the children of God; on the other hand, the Luke 13:6-9 passage serves as a stark warning about impending eternal punishment for all who go to the grave as free-willians for such people do not wear proper clothes (John 3:36 and Matthew 22:11).

You wrote "He cuts off every branch" of John 15:2.

The Word says "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit" (John 15:2).

First, your thoughts contradict the Word "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand" (John 10:28) with respect to the Word recorded in John 15:2.

Second, your thoughts change the Word to become "There are branches in Me that do not bear fruit, so every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit" for John 15:2.

As shown, you do not receive the Word in John 10:28.

As shown, you desperately try void the Word in John 15:2.

As shown, you reject the Word "no one will snatch them out of My hand" (John 10:28).

Since your rejection of the Word has been shown, you need to see "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day" (John 12:48).