Free will makes God appear impotent.

All who have ever been saved were by the atoning death of Christ on their behalf, and I hold that God chose to have babes/infants saved by the death of jesus also...

 

How can they be enslaved to their nature and free? That is a logical contradiction.

That's like saying you can be in a jail cell and free to walk away. Nonsense.

Whatever, your view is absolutely false. Paul himself said the Romans who were servants to sin obeyed the gospel from their heart. This utterly refutes your view.

It was only AFTER believing the gospel that these persons were made free from sin and became servants of righteousness.

Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

I have been showing this scripture for several months now, and not one Calvinist has dared address it, because they KNOW it refutes their false doctrine of Total Inability.

Would you care to explain this scripture Willis?

 

God has chosem to use the Gospel message of the Cross to be the means by which his chosen will be enabled by the holy spirit to come to jesus and get saved, but all of the others that hear it will reamin hardened in their oewn sins...

And are you denying the truth that Unless God grants a sinner a special revelation on just who Jesus really is , they will come unto him to get saved?

 

Why should babies get a break? If they are wicked sinners, don't they deserve to go to hell and be punished forever like everyone else?

Explain why all babies should not go to hell.

 

Who are you talking to? Who denied that a person must hear the revelation of God (the gospel) to be saved?

Show where anyone said this.

You should be banned for constantly accusing others falsely. Disgusting, and you have no shame. Dishonest to the core.

 

How is a baby a wicked sinner?

 

It's rather simple...take my wife for instance. I witness to her, and even ask her to go to church with me. She has no desire...zero interest in going. She freely chooses to stay home and sleep in.

 

What? What does that have to do with Romans 6:17-18?

Explain how those Romans who were servants to sin OBEYED the gospel Willis.

How is that possible if your view is correct?

 

I don't believe babies are sinners whatsoever. I voted that ALL babies go to heaven.

But folks who believe in Original Sin believe all babies are born wicked sinners. If so, why shouldn't every single baby who dies go to hell?

I don't understand how folks who believe in Original Sin believe babies go to heaven, that is a contradiction. If babies are wicked sinners, they SHOULD go to hell. Correct?

So, why don't folks believe all babies go to hell? Not one person has chosen this.

 

Look @ the bigger picture here:


What then? shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? let it not be! have ye not known that to whom ye present yourselves servants for obedience, servants ye are to him to whom ye obey, whether of sin to death, or of obedience to righteousness? and thanks to God, that ye were servants of the sin, and -- were obedient from the heart to the form of teaching to which ye were delivered up; and having been freed from the sin, ye became servants to the righteousness. In the manner of men I speak, because of the weakness of your flesh, for even as ye did present your members servants to the uncleanness and to the lawlessness -- to the lawlessness, so now present your members servants to the righteousness -- to sanctification, for when ye were servants of the sin, ye were free from the righteousness, what fruit, therefore, were ye having then, in the things of which ye are now ashamed? for the end of those [is] death. And now, having been freed from the sin, and having become servants to God, ye have your fruit -- to sanctification, and the end life age-during; for the wages of the sin [is] death, and the gift of God [is] life age-during in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:15-23 YLT

Sanctification is what was going on. The initial act of sanctification belongs to God, and then as we grow. we are progressively sanctified. If we are freed from sin to obey God, that's God's work in us. We don't sanctify ourselves. God frees us...justifies us. God sanctified us by setting us aside to believe via the gift of faith...

 

No, no, no Willis.

Paul clearly says these Romans WERE servants of sin. They were not regenerated, they were still slaves of sin. But even while they were slaves of sin, they were ABLE to obey (believe) the gospel from their heart.

This is impossible if Total Inability is true, but we have the direct words of Paul this is what happened.

Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

That word "but" is very important. That word "but" shows that even though these persons were servants or slaves to sin, they were able to believe the gospel.

And verse 18 further confirms this. Here Paul says, "BEING THEN made free from sin".

18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

The word "then" refers back to verse 17 when these servants of sin obeyed or believed the gospel.

So, it was the very moment these Romans who were slaves of sin believed that they were made FREE from sin. They did not have to be made free from sin to believe as Calvinism falsely teaches. No, the scriptures teach the exact opposite, that it is believing that makes a person free from sin. It is AFTER believing that a person BECOMES a servant or slave of righteousness.

This has nothing to do with sanctification Willis, this scripture is talking about REGENERATION. It is speaking of that moment a person dies to sin and is made free from it, and made alive to Jesus Christ and righteousness.

This scripture utterly refutes the false doctrine of Total Inability Willis.

Game over.

 

Wasn't Judas drawn? And did he choose to only follow along for the money instead of Jesus. Was He saved? No. He was drawn to Christ just like the other disciples. He was hand picked. Yet he didn't believe and was lost because he willingly rejected Christ. Many are drawn but not all receive Christ. Many are convinced but not all accept Him as Savior. This alone proves man has a choice to make, once we are drawn.
MB

 

You were.

You really cannot tell much from that very short statement.

Actually, it proves that Barnes was a noted theologian who wrote the best selling commentary of the 19th century.

Joseph Smith was a kook who claimed he talked to angels and found Egyptian gold plates buried in the woods of 19th century New York state.

You cannot believe Jesus unless you have heard and learned of him (Rom 10:14). That said, some will hear and understand, but they do not take it seriously. So, in this respect they have not learned.

I don't have to prove it, the scriptures themselves SAY it.

2 Tim 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Paul told Timothy that the scriptures were able to make him "wise unto salvation". What men need to be saved is KNOWLEDGE. Learning of Jesus Christ is what enables any man to believe in him.

Paul never mentions the need for supernatural regeneration to believe anywhere in the scriptures. You can't show it.

It is not plain that this is speaking of some internal call. It says no such thing. It simply says those who have been TAUGHT, those who have HEARD (not regenerated) and LEARNED will come to Jesus. And 2 Tim 3:15 says that the word of God is ABLE to make a man wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus.

The scriptures teach that it is knowledge that enables men to believe over and over again.

No it doesn't, you are reading that into the scripture. It says no such thing. And you cannot show any scripture that supports this.

OK, I deleted those verses because they made the post too long. All of those verses do indeed speak of being called by God, but none of them teach that this calling is irresistible. In fact, the opposite is clearly taught, that God calls many men who refuse to come.

Mat 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.

Baloney, the scriptures do not teach there are two different kinds of calls. God calls all men to come to him. Some men listen and learn and come to Jesus. Some refuse to listen and learn and do not come. That is what the scriptures teach. Two different kinds of men, not two different kinds of calls.

No, Jesus said ye WILL NOT come to me, he did not say they could not.

The grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to ALL men.

Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

Sorry, not buying it. No one would get Calvinism from the scriptures. There are waaaay too many scriptures that clearly refute Calvinism to believe that.

No, it's because all that is required to believe in Jesus is to hear preaching about him.

Look, Paul directly asks, "and HOW shall they believe in him" here. This is the most direct scripture in all the Bible addressing the ability to believe on Jesus.

Are you telling me Paul would forget to tell us that a man MUST be regenerated to believe? Do you actually believe that?

If so, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I will sell you. I will give you a good deal. :thumbs:

No, Paul is explaining that faith comes by HEARING the word of God, not being regenerated. All you have to do to have faith in Jesus is listen and take heed to God's word. That's it. Period.​

 

Winman has a point here Calvinist. If you believe all babies get a break, then explain why? Would it be because they had no choice YET??????????

 

If a person believes in free will then you must completely believe in free will. It is contradictory to reason to believe free will before salvation and then turn around after you are saved and hold to eternal security of the saints. If God as some believe doesn't violate your free will before hand why would he violate your free will if you want to return your vomit and wallowing in the mire ? In other words if your free will gets you in, It can also get you out. One falls without the other.

 

That's an unwarranted assumption.
Practically no one who believes in free-will believes it is without limits.
And of those who do, there's no reason to assume that simply because God grants freedom in some instances that he must do so in all.
That's just an unwarranted assumption.
That logic doesn't hold.

 

That explains a lot.

If your reading comprehension is so bad that you actually believed I was complaining, then it’s no wonder you can’t understand the scriptures.

Except that it contradicts your entire thesis. Unreal. Why can’t you just admit that he disagreed with you even though theologically he was much closer to you than me? That isn’t the determination of truth. You only make yourself look bad by ignoring the obvious.

*sigh* Nevermind, just nevermind.

What does the verse say? Explain the verse.

What does John 6:45 say about those who learn from the Father?

Romans 10 has nothing to do with this. This is why you can’t understand – you cherry pick verses, ripped from their context and jam them together to support your man centered ideas.

Again you show your abject inability to understand anything in context. You know you cannot prove your assertion from the context of John 6 so you must jump to another portion of scripture and abuse it in order to try and bolster your failing argument. You should handle the word of God with far more respect.

2 Timothy 3 does say that the scriptures are able to give wisdom for salvation. That is absolutely true! But that has nothing at all to do with explaining the unbelief of the people in the face of Christ’s miracles and preaching.

You cannot possibly miss the connection between hearing/learning from the Father and the giving/drawing by the Father from earlier in the chapter. John 6 consistently shows that the action of God himself, not knowledge, is the root and source of belief, coming to the Son, and the granting of salvation.

I have already shown it and it is plain for all to see. Your unwillingness to accept it does not change that it has been amply proven.

Of course you deleted them - Because they completely destroy your theology. If you had your way you’d completely delete them from the Bible itself.

These passages point to the inward call which you deny entirely.

Acts 2:39 shows that salvation is for any and all, “as many as the Lord our God will call to himself.” He will call them to himself. He will not fail. As many as he wishes, he will call and they will come. This is clearly external as it is God himself calling them to salvation with no mention of secondary means

Romans 8:28-30 shows that from beginning to end it is one group, from being foreknown to being glorified it is the same people, none are lost. This must be an inward effectual call not the open preaching and teaching of the gospel, otherwise all who hear the good news would be saved.

1 Thess 5:24 shows that God who does this calling himself will perfect the sanctification of the believer. He called you, therefore he will complete the task. Clearly inward and direct from God.

Shall I continue? I think it is unnecessary.

You are going out of your way to prove my point! Who does the calling here? It’s the servants of the King, not the King himself. This is the external calling that occurs when we preach the gospel, that can be and is often rejected. Look at the end of the parable:

Mat 22:14 NASB - "For many are called, but few are chosen."​

Calling there refers to the external call from the servants. Of those many that hear this open proclamation of the King’s feast, few are chosen. The rest are cast out. Clearly not the same calling of John 6 as that calling results in complete acceptance with none being cast out.

Two kinds of men AND two calls. That is clearly demonstrated above, in fact you helped prove it! And again read what you said here, “Some refuse to listen and learn and do not come.” That is 100% opposite what Jesus said in John 6! ALL who learn from the Father WILL come. That is because it is the infallible inward call that results in salvation, not the external call from gospel preaching that is often rejected.

No, he really does say that in John 6:65. If they cannot come because they are not drawn, they will not come. The two are complementary.

Yep.
Now does that mean that God’s saving grace has appeared to every single man that has ever lived?

I was raised in an Arminian environment. I was taught that Calvinism is 100% wrong and I believed it. But reading the word of God for myself convinced me of the doctrines of grace. So I did get Calvinism from the scriptures. You lie.

So then you must believe that every person you’ve witnessed to will be saved. If all they need is to be taught the gospel and Jesus plainly said that all who hear and learn will come to him, then that is the only logical conclusion you can arrive at.

I would say John 6 is equally if not more direct regarding the ability to believe. It’s not possible unless the Father draws. That’s the God side of the story. Romans 10 is the human side, we preach and some few respond by calling on Christ. The two are complimentary. Only the Calvinist position can affirm both passages. You on the other hand have to pit them against each other and all but rip John 6 from your Bible in favor of Rom 10.

 

In name only. Though a Presbyterian, he went against the Westminster Standards --in effect going against his ministerial vows.

Can one be a Calvinist and advocate universal atonement and deny original sin? Barnes was no Calvinist.

His commentaries are fine, generally speaking. Spurgeon gave them some praise as well as criticism. CHS said in essence, that Barnes was not a first tier commentator.

And his biblical commentaries were not the only popular ones in the 18th century. On Romans alone Charles Hodge and Robert Haldane were better. I especially prefer the latter. Robert Candlish and Patrick Fairbairn were just a few examples of men whose writings were popular back then.

 

Please....when did they really receive?

 

Well, that's what happens when you really study the scriptures, you find out that certain "traditions" are complete error.

Barnes started out as a Calvinist, because that is how he was trained. But through his own personal studies of the scriptures he began to come out of it.

Makes perfect sense to me. :thumbs: