We choose. We chose. You choose. You chose. You will choose.

[civic]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised you don't see that they do. Take them all together (and there are a lot more), and they certainly do.

What the verse actually says, without the paraphrase's added words, is: "So faith is from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."
And to you, since you assume self-determination, you think that verse logically implies that hearing then produces an act of the will of the hearer, no? So ok, do your will. But HOW did the hearing produce the willed decision? How does a person even have ears to hear? And how does the verse imply that doing your will to believe, produces belief? The belief comes by the Spirit of God, and, yes, upon hearing the word of Christ.

Bad reasoning: Coincidence is not time sequence, and even time sequence doesn't necessarily designate causal sequence. The verse doesn't say what causes what—it only says, "when", and, "and". The unbeliever is by definition made a believer when he is given the faith.

Nowhere does the Bible ever say an unbeliever is given faith. Every time the context is believers are given faith.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Whosoever believes simply means "those who believe". It's not a free will invitation. And it doesn't say anything about why some believe and others don't.

I stated a fact. "Whosoever" is indeterminate. You can not treat it any other way. It is evidence itself.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I know. What's your point?

I'm trying to get across to you the logical sequence—what causes what...

I'm glad you recognize sequence. Most every Calvinist I have ever meet will deny temporal sequence in salvation. They must. If they don't their claims fall apart.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Obviously knew something WHEN? Before regeneration, I knew nothing but conscience. I didn't know how to repent, only how to be sad. I didn't know how to believe.

I'll have a extensive discuss with you on the order of salvation if you like. I believe I remember you saying that you're not a Calvinist nor a Arminian. If so, that would be productive conversation.

I have consistently stated that Repentance is the last step in salvation. Repentance is a "Holy Thing". A person can not see themselves fully for what they are without being "born again". Such requires the "Spirit of God".

Calvinism actually understands this better than Arminianism. However, they have ridiculously separated regeneration and placed it at the beginning so to establish the exclusive nature of their election.

 

[civic]

I'll have a extensive discuss with you on the order of salvation if you like. I believe I remember you saying that you're not a Calvinist nor a Arminian. If so, that would be productive conversation.

I have consistent stated that Repentance is the last step in salvation. Repentance is a "Holy Thing". A person can not see themselves fully for what they are without being "born again". Such requires the "Spirit of God".

Calvinism actually understands this better than Arminianism. However, they have ridiculously separated regeneration and placed it at the beginning so to establish the exclusive nature of their election.

Mark supports tulip or the doctrines of grace so in that sense he is a calvinists since 99.999% of the church associates tulip with calvinism. you cannot be one without the other as they go hand in hand together.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I stated a fact. "Whosoever" is indeterminate. You can not treat it any other way. It is evidence itself.

If by "indeterminate" you mean it could be anyone, you're wrong. "Whosoever is 6 feet tall or taller" cannot apply to just anyone.

 

[praise_yeshua]

If by "indeterminate" you mean it could be anyone, you're wrong. "Whosoever is 6 feet tall or taller" cannot apply to just anyone.

Why are you denying the simple definition of "indeterminate"?

Here is the simplicity of indeterminate = "not exactly known, established, or defined."

Notice ..... "not defined".... Why are you you trying to define whosoever as "6 feet or taller"?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Why are you denying the simple definition of "indeterminate"?

Here is the simplicity of indeterminate = "not exactly known, established, or defined."

Notice ..... "not defined".... Why are you you trying to define whosoever as "6 feet or taller"?

I'm not redefining the word. I'm demonstrating that "whosoever" just means "those who". "Whosoever is 6 feet tall or taller" is a perfectly grammatically correct sentence, meaning "those who are 6 feet tall or taller".

 

[civic]

I'm not redefining the word. I'm demonstrating that "whosoever" just means "those who". "Whosoever is 6 feet tall or taller" is a perfectly grammatically correct sentence, meaning "those who are 6 feet tall or taller".

pas: all, every
Original Word: πᾶς, πᾶσα, πᾶν
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: pas
Phonetic Spelling: (pas)
Definition: all, every
Usage: all, the whole

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

pas: all, every
Original Word: πᾶς, πᾶσα, πᾶν
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: pas
Phonetic Spelling: (pas)
Definition: all, every
Usage: all, the whole

Yes, all. All of whom? All who believe. Which is no different than all Mexicans, or all Lithuanian midgets.

I know you guys are dead set on believing "whosoever" translates to a free will choice, but it doesn't.

 

[civic]

Yes, all. All of whom? All who believe. Which is no different than all Mexicans, or all Lithuanian midgets.

I know you guys are dead set on believing "whosoever" translates to a free will choice, but it doesn't.

No all the world, everyone as in all inclusive and Not exclusive. Your gospel is only for some not all, salvation is only available for some not all.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Yes, all. All of whom? All who believe. Which is no different than all Mexicans, or all Lithuanian midgets.

I know you guys are dead set on believing "whosoever" translates to a free will choice, but it doesn't.

You misunderstand my argument. I never said it established freewill. I'm saying it is an indeterminate quantity that does not exclude anyone. It is a simple word. Left alone... it does not establish freewill nor exclude freewill.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

You misunderstand my argument. I never said it established freewill. I'm saying it is an indeterminate quantity that does not exclude anyone. It is a simple word. Left alone... it does not establish freewill nor exclude freewill.

That's why I added context. Just as "Whosoever is Mexican" excludes non-Mexicans, "Whosoever believes" excludes people who don't believe.

You're right that it doesn't establish or even imply that "believe" is a free will choice.

 

[praise_yeshua]

That's why I added context. Just as "Whosoever is Mexican" excludes non-Mexicans, "Whosoever believes" excludes people who don't believe.

You're right that it doesn't establish or even imply that "believe" is a free will choice.

and.................. it does not exclude it. Why can't you accept this?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

and.................. it does not exclude it. Why can't you accept this?

I accept that. All I'm saying is that it is a wrong to believe "whosoever" means free choice. And you already agree with me on that.

 

[L.A.M.B.]

I just have to put the Calvinists believers on ignore. How deceived can one be. What kind of God or truth do they believe in ? The fact is God does not show partiality in offering the gift of salvation, per the gospel of Jesus. Their belief makes John 3 null & void !

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I just have to put the Calvinists believers on ignore. How deceived can one be. What kind of God or truth do they believe in ? The fact is God does not show partiality in offering the gift of salvation, per the gospel of Jesus. Their belief makes John 3 null & void !

We believe in a supreme sovereign God whose attributes include love, wrath against unrighteousness and mercy. And He has mercy on whom he has mercy and whom he wills, he hardens. And we men have no standing upon which to claim God does anything else but what pleases him according to his good pleasure.

 

[makesends]

Nowhere does the Bible ever say an unbeliever is given faith. Every time the context is believers are given faith.

The construction: "An unbeliever is given faith" is a bogus concept. I don't teach that, as I have said repeatedly.

To have [salvific] faith is to believe. The unbeliever is made a believer upon the 'moment' the Spirit of God produces that faith. So no, there is no time a believer can called an unbeliever when he decides to believe. His decision did not cause it. God's decision did.

"Behold I stand at the door and knock..." is a reference to fellowship —not regeneration— and thus the sometimes great joy and relief of burden felt by those who think the moment of 'opening the door' to be salvation itself.

 

[civic]

The construction: "An unbeliever is given faith" is a bogus concept. I don't teach that, as I have said repeatedly.

To have [salvific] faith is to believe. The unbeliever is made a believer upon the 'moment' the Spirit of God produces that faith. So no, there is no time a believer can called an unbeliever when he decides to believe. His decision did not cause it. God's decision did.

"Behold I stand at the door and knock..." is a reference to fellowship —not regeneration— and thus the sometimes great joy and relief of burden felt by those who think the moment of 'opening the door' to be salvation itself.

I have an appoint to get ready for but I will get back to you later my friend

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
I'm trying to get across to you the logical sequence—what causes what...

I'm glad you recognize sequence. Most every Calvinist I have ever meet will deny temporal sequence in salvation. They must. If they don't their claims fall apart.

Notice that, in effect, you change here, what I called "logical sequence", to "temporal sequence". The one does not cause the other. You have misrepresented me.