Featured "given" is inclusive of "draw" in John 6

It is not that we do not understand how you feel. It is that you are totally incapable of defending your position intelligently and capably. That is the problem.

I placed before you an example you admit that totally destroys your whole position and yet you have no intelligent capable response. God's will is under the coersion of his nature and it is IMPOSSIBLE for HIs will to choose contrary to His nature and if God is OMNIPOTENT are you really suggesting a creature who is not omnipotent is yet capable of exercising his will contrary to his own nature when God cannot do it??? We have heard you nonsense, ridicule, bloviating but do you have any intelligent response?

 

That is not true simply because man is not omnipotent AND because God controls circumstances. Circumstances limit options. In addition to circumstances, their are other factors that limit man from doing the worst. There are fear factors that act as inhibator's such as social response, the law of reaping what you sow, etc. Moreover, doing the worst thing possible is not always the best option for pure selfishness. So your argument is wrong on many fronts.

No, I have just shown your whole rationale does not consider all factors and so this is not a rational conclusion. It is not a Biblical conclusion as the Bible repeatedly over and over again make UNIVERSAL DENIALS of the very thing you are asserting.

Notice, the text does not say "before the child shall know how to CHOOSE EVIL and refuse the good." However, that is what would be required of this verse to support your interpetation.

There is not even a hint of implication that he could lie in this verse but an absolute explcit denial to the contrary. The only way he could be a liar like them is "if" this was possible but he clearly denies it with the words "BUT I know him, and KEEP his saying."

Why not keep this conversation out of the gutter and just exchange ideas? Every argument you give above has been shown to be based upon lack of facts, misinterpretation of scriptures and outright contradiction to repeated universal statements to the contrary. Such are the facts.

 

You are repeating absolute falsehoods again! Man does not control his circumstances and would have to do so for him to always carry out the worst choices. There are consequences that the most evil of men fear (government, social, other men's evil responses, law, etc) which restrain them. Pure selfishness is not always served by doing the worst. You cannot simply ignore these facts and hope they go away but that is what you are trying to do and what you must do to make your irrational argument to be rationale.

Is that why you cannot respond to the problems I presented to your assertion? Is that why you ignore the problems placed in front of you?

This scripture proves they can choose evil and refuse good even if they are not capable yet of discerning which is which. Tags don't change what something is by its very nature. The nature of every infant is as self-centered as it comes and the entire young life must be taught by parents and circumstances to CONTROL its appetites and actions.

First, the word "if" does not always suggest something is possible but in many cases demands it is not possible. For example, "If I go away, I willl return" does not infer he might not go away. For example, "If it were not so, I would have told you" does not infer it might not be so, but in each of these cases the word "if" means "Since" and that is what it means in this text.

Furthermore, this is a third conditional class clause in the Greek text according to A.T. Robertson:

And if I should say (καν ειπω). Third-class condition (concession), "even if I say," with και εαν (καν) and second aorist active subjunctive. "Suppose I say."

It does not suggest the possibility but only provides a hypothetical argument which is contrary to fact.

Your probelm is that "everbody in the world" is not the final authority for determining whether this is true or false. The Word of God repeatedly with universal language explicitly repudiates you and the world. Finally, good is not defined by God according to "everybody in the world" but according to His own definition of "good" which he judges by the roots of motive in the heart behind whatever you choose to think, say or do.

However, let the reader look at your authority for your doctrine ("the world") rather than the Word of God.

If I had a body that was mature to match my evil nature not only I would have killed my parents but so would every child ever born and mankind would have self-anihilated. That is why infants come in small packages and why older more mature self-controlled parents have children.

 

You are making yourself look very foolish. Any intelligent reader fully comprehends that omnipotence is essential for the worst choice and action to be accomplished. Mutual evil is a restraint as one mans worst choice and action may be met by another equally worst choice and action by other evil men - thus fear of retribution does in fact restrain evil. Limitations due to circumctance restrains the worst desires and actions. Pure selfishness prevents this as the worst possible choices and actions. Government, armies, police, war restrains the worst of choices and actions. If you are not capable of understanding these restraints are real and effective that make your argument completely foolish, then no one can help you as I have spelled it out three times now and not one time have you even attempted to address a single item but simply repeated your irrational statement and then provided nothing else but ridicule.

That is simply not true and you know it. We believe that large numbers of mankind every day EXTERNALLY hear, MENTALLY are convinced, and VOLITIONALLY choose to come to Christ but nevertheless are no more genuinely saved after they choose to come to Christ as they were before they come to Christ. This is the experience of all tares, false professors and those identified as "his disciples" in John 6:64 who were NEVER drawn by the Father as Jesus defines drawing in John 6:44-45.

Again, no substantive response only ridicule and personal attack.

Coming to Christ out of fear of hell is not the basis for true salvation as coming to Christ due to hunger for bread and fish is not the basis for true salvation. There must be a condition of true "repentance" logically preceding faith or else it is a false profession. Repentance is turning because God is turning you from sin to righteousness from darkness to light and that is impossible apart from God giving a new heart and spirit.

Again, I provide substantive reasons, grammar and your only response is ridicule. Don't you realize how this makes you look to any intelligent reader??? At least attempt to address the reasons I give and show why they are either wrong and/or unreasonable.

Unlike adults infants have not learned any restraints except their physical limitations. Learning to restrain/control yourself comes by consequences alone. So really this is an admission by you of universal depravity beginning from the womb.

 

If that is so, then why can't you point out the contradictions rather than just making unproven assertions and repeating the same line?????

If that is so, then why can't you point out how I am speaking out of both sides of my mouth rather than making unsupported accusations?

You are only demonstrating your own misunderstanding of our position. We have never denied the GENERAL call brings in bad fish who are more than willing to embrace the gospel for a variety of reasons, all of which are wrong.

Coming wrath can be used to get our attention to what the real reason is for that wrath which is our sin. No amount of fear of hell can acheive salvation or obtain salvation or be the proper cause for coming to Christ as the greater issue is the cause for the coming wrath which is our sins. Jesus said "repent or perish" (Lk. 13:3) as there is no salvation for the unrepentant regardless how much they fear hell or come to Christ to escape hell.

You are selective in your reading. However, I will repeat it again. Infants are without SELF-CONTROL which is only learned by consequences. Infants anger and selfishness is controlled by things greater than themselves - restraints of a weak and small body; larger parents able to overrule their anger and selfishness. So, babies are not able to carry out their worst desires because they are not omnipotent and because there are restraints placed around them. If no such restraints were in place, then yes they would kill parents and sibblings alike.

The same is true for adults. They are not omnipotent. Trial and error has taught them self-control due to consequences, restraints, fears. So once again you seem not able to comprehend these simple factors that completely destroy your theory.

The majority of your posts are composed of ridicule without any substantive responses and readers can see this. Why not drop the ridicule and empty assertions and provide some substantive responses?