Free Willism or God's Soeveignty in Salvation of All

[Eusebius]

Just an interesting thought here. For 1600 years or so, the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Churches, were the ONLY players in town. Then the Protestant reformation came along and they claim to have brought the true understanding. The only problem is that each reformer, claims to have their version, of what the full truth is. Now there is a thread opened up, where someone claims to bring their version of truth - “the real understanding” - to light regarding the Bible. And they really never did establish why the Protestant canon of scripture is true, but the EO and RC canons are not. If they have “found the truth”, then why has God determined mankind should spend 2000 years or so, in versions that are not the truth?

I guess I end with a Bible verse: Proverbs 12:19 - New Living Translation

Truthful words stand the test of time, but lies are soon exposed.

Paul prophesied what would happen as you suggest:
"Now the spirit is saying explicitly, that in subsequent eras some will be withdrawing from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and the teachings of demons, in the hypocrisy of false expressions, their own conscience having been cauterized; forbidding to marry, abstaining from foods, which God creates to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who believe and realize the truth, (1Ti 4:1-3).

“Now I am aware that, after I am out of reach, burdensome wolves will be entering among you, not sparing the flocklet. And from among yourselves will arise men, speaking perverse things to pull away disciples after themselves” (Act 20:29-30).

1Co 11:19 For it must be that there are sects also among you, that those also who are qualified may be becoming apparent among you."

Or to put it simply. If what they say here is truth, it will stand the test of time. Just the same as it would, with any “man made discovery”. Whether it be a work of literature or philosophy, a scientific discovery, etc. And theologians, philosophers and churches will get on board, since it has been pointed out - “the error of their ways”.

Yep.

[Eusebius]

I’m sure Calvin believes in the Sovereignty of God as did Jesus and Paul and James and the Old Testament writers.

I’m not sure what this has to do with God being sovereign.

I’m not sure WHY you errantly believe freewill somehow challenges sovereignty… in the end man’s (free) will is subject to God’s (free) will.

But there is no such thing as “freewill” so how can what doesn’t exist challenge God’s sovereignty?

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

@Eusebius

But there is no such thing as “freewill” so how can what doesn’t exist challenge God’s sovereignty?

But that “truth” is Not self-evident. Some here have written chapters or a book - to establish their position. Then they asked for constructive feedback. So far, you won’t sell this, to the vast majority of mankind (as well as professional theologians, philosophers, etc.).

“I’m not waiting until my hair turns white to become patient and wise. Nope, I’m dyeing my hair tonight.”-- Jarod Kintz

So far, you would have the same success, as the woman in this video. Both sell some form of determinism (actually, I might buy into her arguments - if I were her husband).:

or

youtube.com/watch?v=5kaiLcwHXB4

[Eusebius]

But there is no such thing as “freewill” so how can what doesn’t exist challenge God’s sovereignty?

But that “truth” is Not self-evident. Some here have written chapters or a book - to establish their position. Then they asked for constructive feedback. So far, you won’t sell this, to the vast majority of mankind (as well as professional theologians, philosophers, etc.).

Like I have said many times now: We have a will.
I’m sure you believe all humans have a will.

The Bible calls that will “the will of the flesh.”

The flesh is at enmity to God. Therefore man’s will is at enmity to God. Therefore man’s will is not free to be friends with God.

Do you see the above biblical facts?

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

@Eusebius

Like I have said many times now: We have a will.
I’m sure you believe all humans have a will.

The Bible calls that will “the will of the flesh.”

The flesh is at enmity to God. Therefore man’s will is at enmity to God. Therefore man’s will is not free to be friends with God.

Do you see the above biblical facts?

https://cdn.andertoons.com/img/toons/cartoon7391.png

Sure. Everyone on this forum buys into us having a will and God having a will. But I think that is all, we agree with you - regarding it. But taking a couple passages out of context… is not the same as church theologians, who put verses into a long and expanded form… explain the whole Biblical exegesis - regarding the Biblical books (or books) they came from.

But I have more holiday stuff on the agenda. So I might have to continue any “deep” discussions, until tomorrow (or the day before yesterday…or the second Tuesday of next week - one of those 3 **determined **options).

But I’ll tell you what. If you can find a church that teaches** total and complete determinism **- in the Chicago or Chicago suburban area, I will go and visit it (if it’s Hyper-Calvinism, I’ve already been there - unfortunately). After all, if I’m brave enough to:

Visit and participate in Native American ceremonies
Visit the nearby Islamic center
Hear talks at the Theosophical Society
Visit local Hindu temples and Buddhist centers
Visit a variety of Christian churches

All to expand my horizons, so to speak - I’ll be happy to visit a nearby church, that teaches total and complete determinism. That’s my promise to you (disclaimer: If it has been determined, that I have already visited one - then my determined promise doesn’t count).

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS8TNOpkgHJWhBCSFGQHdNOppNG_camiAAECmpuKShenmxe74c0sw

It has been determined, that I’m most in accordance with this answer at Predestination:

The Eastern Orthodox view was summarized by Bishop Theophan the Recluse in response to the question, “What is the relationship between the Divine provision and our free will?”

Answer: The fact that the Kingdom of God is “taken by force” presupposes personal effort. When the Apostle Paul says, “it is not of him that willeth,” this means that one’s efforts do not produce what is sought. It is necessary to combine them: to strive and to expect all things from grace. It is not one’s own efforts that will lead to the goal, because without grace, efforts produce little; nor does grace without effort bring what is sought, because grace acts in us and for us through our efforts. Both combine in a person to bring progress and carry him to the goal. (God’s) foreknowledge is unfathomable. It is enough for us with our whole heart to believe that it never opposes God’s grace and truth, and that it does not infringe man’s freedom. Usually this resolves as follows: God foresees how a man will freely act and makes dispositions accordingly. Divine determination depends on the life of a man, and not his life upon the determination.[32]

And speaking of Martin Luther. Here’s how Lutherans see it:

Lutherans do not believe that there are certain people that are predestined to salvation, but salvation is predestined for those who seek God.

[Paidion]

The Oxford dictionary is not inspired.

So what is the relevance of that to the internal contradiction of the phrase “before time began”? Dictionaries tell us how words are used—in this case what people mean when they use the word “before.”

1Co_2:7 but we are speaking God’s wisdom in a secret, wisdom which has been concealed, which God designates before - before the eons, for our glory,

Since the eons mark out time and since God existed before the eons, we know God existed before time was being marked out.

Now you are talking about “before the ages.” However, the expression “before the ages” is not tantamount to “before time began.”

[Eusebius]

Like I have said many times now: We have a will.
I’m sure you believe all humans have a will.

The Bible calls that will “the will of the flesh.”

The flesh is at enmity to God. Therefore man’s will is at enmity to God. Therefore man’s will is not free to be friends with God.

Do you see the above biblical facts?

Sure. Everyone on this forum buys into us having a will and God having a will. But I think that is all, we agree with you - regarding it. But taking a couple passages out of context… is not the same as church theologians, who put verses into a long and expanded form… explain the whole Biblical exegesis - regarding the Biblical books (or books) they came from.

But I have more holiday stuff on the agenda. So I might have to continue any “deep” discussions, until tomorrow (or the day before yesterday…or the second Tuesday of next week - one of those 3 **determined **options).

But I’ll tell you what. If you can find a church that teaches** total and complete determinism **- in the Chicago or Chicago suburban area, I will go and visit it. After all, if I’m brave enough to:

Visit and participate in Native American ceremonies
Visit the nearby Islamic center
Hear talks at the Theosophical Society
Visit local Hindu temples and Buddhist centers
Visit a variety of Christian churches

All to expand my horizons, so to speak - I’ll be happy to visit a nearby church, that teaches total and complete determinism. That’s my promise to you (disclaimer: If it has been determined, that I have already visited one - then my determined promise doesn’t count).

The Eastern Orthodox view was summarized by Bishop Theophan the Recluse in response to the question, “What is the relationship between the Divine provision and our free will?”

Answer: The fact that the Kingdom of God is “taken by force” presupposes personal effort.

Here is the Concordant Commentary on Matthew 11:12:
12 John’s methods were drastic and violent. He would have forced the kingdom on the nation, just as our Lord will do when the two witnesses will withhold rain, and turn waters into blood, and smite the earth with calamities (Rev 11:3-6). John came in the spirit and power of Elijah. For the time, our Lord was of an entirely different spirit.

Therefore it does not mean that which he took it to mean. It is not even about “being taken by force” but:
Mat 11:12 Now, from the days of John the baptist hitherto, the kingdom of the heavens is being violently forced and the violent are snatching it.

“The proclamation made at His public appearance was, “Near is the kingdom of the heavens.” John the Baptist so announced, then the King did so. Later He sent the twelve to announce the same evangel, then dispatched the seventy to herald it abroad. A little later the kingdom was said to be violently seized by force (Matt.11:12; Luke 16:16), in the decapitation of the King’s herald, and the predicted prospect of similar violence to the King Himself (Matt.17:12). He also spoke of people entering the kingdom at that time (Matt.21:31; 23:13). All this evidence shows that in some sense the kingdom was present then. This seems to conflict with the scriptural truth that it will not come until the King returns from heaven. The difficulty vanishes when we discern that the kingdom “outstripped” this intervening time between His two advents (Matt.12:28; Luke 11:20, RCV), so as to give them a “foretaste” of it when the King was present (CV). Isaiah, “the kingdom prophet,” predicted that in that day “the inhabitant of the land shall not say, `I am sick,’” so when the King healed sickness, He gave the healed ones a foretaste of the kingdom health. In that way they did
“enter” the kingdom by entering the perfect health that will be in it. Thus the kingdom outstripped the intervening time temporarily, as long as the kingdom signs continued.” (Unsearchable Riches vol.38)

When the Apostle Paul says, “it is not of him that willeth,” this means that one’s efforts do not produce what is sought. It is necessary to combine them: to strive and to expect all things from grace. It is not one’s own efforts that will lead to the goal, because without grace, efforts produce little; nor does grace without effort bring what is sought, because grace acts in us and for us through our efforts.

The above is not the case with Paul when on the Damascus road. He was saved by pure, unadulterated grace without his seeking Christ at all. And Paul said the way he was saved (by grace) is a pattern for those who are about to be believing.

Both combine in a person to bring progress and carry him to the goal. (God’s) foreknowledge is unfathomable. It is enough for us with our whole heart to believe that it never opposes God’s grace and truth, and that it does not infringe man’s freedom. Usually this resolves as follows: God foresees how a man will freely act and makes dispositions accordingly. Divine determination depends on the life of a man, and not his life upon the determination.[32]

The Bible is quite clear that that Greek Orthodox Bishop is wrong. “Those who are set for life eonian believe.” It doesn’t say they are given a crack at salvation by their own free will. Nor does it state that one who is set for life eonian, by mixing their will with grace can attain to that eonian life. No, God has already predestined who it is who will have eonian life before the disruption of the world . . . long before we were born or put into acts anything good of bad.

I don’t say this in a nasty way and it is certainly not meant to put you down in any way. If you don’t get the very basics of what I’ve said, you will not understand a theologians long drawn out exegesis on the subject.
Like Jesus told Nicodemus “If I told you of the terrestrial and you are not believing, how shall you be believing if I should be telling you of the celestial?” (Joh_3:12). So Jesus was testing Nicodemus’ present understanding to see if He could go further with him.

If you want to have a really great read, get The Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther. He goes toe to toe with Erasmus who holds to free will and completely tears him to shreds.

[Eusebius]

The Oxford dictionary is not inspired.

So what is the relevance of that to the internal contradiction of the phrase “before time began”? Dictionaries tell us how words are used—in this case what people mean when they use the word “before.”

There is no contradiction to “before time began.” The Bible is quite clear that God was before the eons. The eons mark out time. Therefore God was before time.

1Co_2:7 but we are speaking God’s wisdom in a secret, wisdom which has been concealed, which God designates before - before the eons, for our glory,

Since the eons mark out time and since God existed before the eons, we know God existed before time was being marked out.

Now you are talking about “before the ages.” However, the expression “before the ages” is not tantamount to “before time began.”

I can only give you what the Scriptures state. I could go into Plato’s Timmeaus on how Plato used the eons and the heavens which mark out time in His KRONOS section, but Plato is not inspired. But it does let us know what they thought of the eons in that they began when God created the heavens to begin the marking of time. But I’d rather stick with the Scriptures.

Obviously if God created the eons, He therefore, logically existed prior to their creation and therefore existed prior to the marking of time by using the eons as markers.

But what does this have to do with the will of man being in bondage?

[Paidion]

There is no contradiction to “before time began.”

There is clearly a contradiction, although apparently, you do not yet see it.

I’ll try once more. There can be no “before” time began. “Before” implies a period of time prior to some event. Let’s say time began at point P, that is, the first event ever to happen occurred at point P. If there was a time prior to point P, then point P is NOT the beginning of time. The beginning of time must be at some point prior to P. The contradiction is 1) Point P is the beginning of time is inconsistent with 2) There was a time before Point P. Or simply, “There was a time before the beginning of time.”

[Eusebius]

There is no contradiction to “before time began.”

There is clearly a contradiction, although apparently, you do not yet see it.

I’ll try once more. There can be no “before” time began. “Before” implies a period of time prior to some event. Let’s say time began at point P, that is, the first event ever to happen occurred at point P. If there was a time prior to point P, then point P is NOT the beginning of time. The beginning of time must be at some point prior to P. The contradiction is 1) Point P is the beginning of time is inconsistent with 2) There was a time before Point P. Or simply, “There was a time before the beginning of time.”

There was not time before time. I never made that assumption. There was existence before time. Since the eons mark out time and since the Bible says there was the existence of God’s wisdom before the eons (1 Cor.2:7), then we must conclude that God existed prior to the eons and therefore prior to the marking of time.

[Paidion]

Just an interesting thought here. For 1600 years or so, the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Churches, were the ONLY players in town.

Actually, the the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Churches didn’t exist prior to A.D. 1054. It was in that year that the historic Catholic Church split into the Roman Catholic and Orthodox branches.

Then the Protestant reformation came along and they claim to have brought the true understanding.

There were also other groups outside the RC and Orthodox Churches prior to the Protestant Reformation, for example, the Waldensian and Albigensian Churches. Even during the many centuries prior to A.D. 1054, there were Christian churches or groups outside the Catholic Church. They were considered to be heretics, of course.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

@Paidion

@Hi Randy

Just an interesting thought here. For 1600 years or so, the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Churches, were the ONLY players in town.

Actually, the the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Churches didn’t exist prior to A.D. 1054. It was in that year that the historic Catholic Church split into the Roman Catholic and Orthodox branches.

Then the Protestant reformation came along and they claim to have brought the true understanding.

There were also other groups outside the RC and Orthodox Churches prior to the Protestant Reformation, for example, the Waldensian and Albigensian Churches. Even during the many centuries prior to A.D. 1054, there were Christian churches or groups outside the Catholic Church. They were considered to be heretics, of course.

I knew the first fact, regarding the 1054 split. But it didn’t occur in my mind to add this fact - when I wrote this. Too busy multitasking.
I didn’t know about the other 2 churches - prior to the reformation.

@Eusebius

I don’t say this in a nasty way and it is certainly not meant to put you down in any way. If you don’t get the very basics of what I’ve said, you will not understand a theologians long drawn out exegesis on the subject.

I can read, Eusebius. Actually, in multiple languages, by the way. I just don’t agree with you. That’s the basic problem, as I see it. Or perhaps I need a translator, to “interpret what **you **are saying”.

or

youtube.com/watch?v=g0j2dVuhr6s

@Eusebius

No, God has already predestined who it is who will have eonian life before the disruption of the world . . . long before we were born or put into acts anything good of bad.

So I should believe John Calvin then? Why not his version of the Bible over yours?

@Eusebius

Here is the Concordant Commentary on Matthew 11:12:

The Bishop is putting “taken by force” in quotes. Do you know what that means? I do it all the time. But since you live in Michigan, call the local public library, adult reference libarian. They will give you the answer, free of charge.

Or, since I am in a good mood, you can read the answer here:

What does adding quotes to an expression do to its meaning?

As far as the Eastern Orthodox Bishop being wrong, he would be - as Eusebius “sees things.” But like the Baptist minister said, who had his doctorate in theology from a Catholic University: It boils down to a matter of belief. Or as I put it, in the Blind Men and the Elephant - each is actually describing a part of the Elephant.

Or might I ask - which Biblical canon? RC, EC or Protestant? And do we add Holy Tradition to the mix, along with Sacred Scripture - as the Eastern Orthodox do? And Eusebius hasn’t told me why I should accept the Protestant over the EO or RC canons. Or why I should ignore Sacred Tradition. Or even why I shouldn’t adopt the Quaker position, which gives precedence to spiritual experience. Or - if I wanted to, can produce another Biblical commentary, that sides with the bishop’s rendering. How do we know which commentary is correct? Or better yet, “the most correct”

So are we now playing a game, Eusebius ? Let’s see now. How do these game rules go?

Who can give a particular Biblical spin and logical reasons for it?
Who can produce different spins, based upon quoting from different Biblical commentaries?

The correct answer is either yes or no.

But let’s try to make peace. Let’s see how one of my mentors, Rupus T Firefly, does it.

or

youtube.com/watch?v=m9Wh66FXZJQ

[davo]

So are we now playing a game, Eusebius ? Let’s see now. How do these game rules go?

That’s it, and the rules go like this… when you play someone else’s game you always end up playing by their rules, and when you play their game by their rules YOU lose. The trick is to not play their game. This explains why Eusebius sometimes avoids responding to certain posts, unless pushed, because they fall outside his rules and he gets dumbfounded, UNTIL he can fashion a response somehow back under his terms… which usually means reverting to repeating an unsubstantiated blanket statement the likes of “there is no free will” etc.

IOW… he defines what a given word/phrase means and then attributes that same apparent meaning to whatever else he wants to attach to it, for example, his assumption about “the flesh” that then he transfers to “the will” and so his train slowly pulls out of the station to rumble down along his predetermined line to the next predetermined station… ad nauseam.

As to “before time began” – more arguing over semantics and consequently missing the proverbial ‘wood for the trees’ – the phrase <πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων> pro chronōn aiōviōn (2Tim 1:9. Tit 1:2) is a simple EUPHEMISM simply meaning… “a long, long time ago”.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

@davo

@Holy-Fool-P-Zombie

So are we now playing a game, Eusebius ? Let’s see now. How do these game rules go?

That’s it, and the rules go like this… when you play someone else’s game you always end up playing by their rules, and when you play their game by their rules YOU lose. The trick is to not play their game. This explains why Eusebius sometimes avoids responding to certain posts, unless pushed, because they fall outside his rules and he gets dumbfounded, UNTIL he can fashion a response somehow back under his terms… which usually means reverting to repeating an unsubstantiated blanket statement the likes of “there is no free will” etc.

IOW… he defines what a given word/phrase means and then attributes that same apparent meaning to whatever else he wants to attach to it, for example, his assumption about “the flesh” that then he transfers to “the will” and so his train slowly pulls out of the station to rumble down along his predetermined line to the next predetermined station… ad nauseam.

As to “before time began” – more arguing over semantics and consequently missing the proverbial ‘wood for the trees’ – the phase <πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων> pro chronōn aiōviōn (2Tim 1:9. Tit 1:2) is a simple EUPHEMISM simply meaning… “a long, long time ago”.

That mean’s there are “unwritten game rules”, that Eusebius makes up - as we go along.

“a long, long time ago”? I should dedicate a song, to this. Which probably signifies how long, Eusebius will continue this thread. Akin to the Jehovah Witnesses, knocking at your door, with their “persistent version of Biblical truth”. I wonder if he knows the difference between having a dialogue and religious fanaticism or being a zealot?

or

youtube.com/watch?v=a_XgQhMPeEQ

Perhaps he should collect a fee for this

or

youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

[LLC]

Eusebious, If I am understanding you correctly,God wills everything. So, how do you know if He is willing you to see the truth or an untruth? At this very moment, God may be willing you to believe a misinterpretation of the Bible so that later He may show you the error of your ways.

[Eusebius]

I don’t say this in a nasty way and it is certainly not meant to put you down in any way. If you don’t get the very basics of what I’ve said, you will not understand a theologians long drawn out exegesis on the subject.

I can read, Eusebius. Actually, in multiple languages, by the way. I just don’t agree with you. That’s the basic problem, as I see it. Or perhaps I need a translator, to “interpret what **you **are saying”.

I too can read as could the Pharisees and Sadducees. I know you don’t agree with me. Do you need a flashlight to see the sun? It is so apparent what I am saying that no translator is necessary. What one needs is for God to open up one’s heart to see it.

No, God has already predestined who it is who will have eonian life before the disruption of the world . . . long before we were born or put into acts anything good of bad.

So I should believe John Calvin then? Why not his version of the Bible over yours?

It is not that you should believe Calvin. You should however believe the Bible which is very clear on this subject. I don’t know why you bring up “his version of the Bible over yours.” He was a French theologian and most likely used a French version. Mine is English. But I’m sure his French version and my English version say the same thing in that man has a will. That will is the will of the flesh. That flesh is enmity to God. Therefore man’s will is enmity to God. No translator needed.

Here is the Concordant Commentary on Matthew 11:12:

The Bishop is putting “taken by force” in quotes. Do you know what that means? I do it all the time. But since you live in Michigan, call the local public library, adult reference libarian. They will give you the answer, free of charge.

Oh, getting snarky are we?

Or, since I am in a good mood, you can read the answer here:

What does adding quotes to an expression do to its meaning?

If I write: In my Bible it is written that “God loves the world.” I am telling the reader that I am quoting that part in quotes, word for word as it appears in the bible I am referencing.

As far as the Eastern Orthodox Bishop being wrong, he would be - as Eusebius “sees things.” But like the Baptist minister said, who had his doctorate in theology from a Catholic University: It boils down to a matter of belief. Or as I put it, in the Blind Men and the Elephant - each is actually describing a part of the Elephant.

I am not describing a part of an elephant though.

Or might I ask - which Biblical canon? RC, EC or Protestant? And do we add Holy Tradition to the mix, along with Sacred Scripture - as the Eastern Orthodox do? And Eusebius hasn’t told me why I should accept the Protestant over the EO or RC canons. Or why I should ignore Sacred Tradition. Or even why I shouldn’t adopt the Quaker position, which gives precedence to spiritual experience. Or - if I wanted to, can produce another Biblical commentary, that sides with the bishop’s rendering. How do we know which commentary is correct? Or better yet, “the most correct”

You should believe the Sacred Scriptures first and foremost. That is our source. What I have quoted makes the most sense. Either you see the sense of it or you don’t.

So are we now playing a game, Eusebius ? Let’s see now. How do these game rules go?

Who can give a particular Biblical spin and logical reasons for it?
Who can produce different spins, based upon quoting from different Biblical commentaries?

Sorry, I am not into games. This conversation is for grown-ups, not children.

The correct answer is either yes or no.

But let’s try to make peace. Let’s see how one of my mentors, Rupus T Firefly, does it.

What part of : “man has a will. Man’s will is the will of the flesh. The flesh is enmity to God. Man’s will is at enmity to God” do you not understand. These biblical statements need no expositor, translator or great and heavy tome to transmit their meaning to a person. They just need to be believed.

[Eusebius]

So are we now playing a game, Eusebius ? Let’s see now. How do these game rules go?

That’s it, and the rules go like this… when you play someone else’s game you always end up playing by their rules, and when you play their game by their rules YOU lose. The trick is to not play their game. This explains why Eusebius sometimes avoids responding to certain posts, unless pushed, because they fall outside his rules and he gets dumbfounded, UNTIL he can fashion a response somehow back under his terms… which usually means reverting to repeating an unsubstantiated blanket statement the likes of “there is no free will” etc.

IOW… he defines what a given word/phrase means and then attributes that same apparent meaning to whatever else he wants to attach to it, for example, his assumption about “the flesh” that then he transfers to “the will” and so his train slowly pulls out of the station to rumble down along his predetermined line to the next predetermined station… ad nauseam.

As to “before time began” – more arguing over semantics and consequently missing the proverbial ‘wood for the trees’ – the phrase <πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων> pro chronōn aiōviōn (2Tim 1:9. Tit 1:2) is a simple EUPHEMISM simply meaning… “a long, long time ago”.

You just did the very thing you accuse me of. But it doesn’t mean “a long, long time ago.” Here is the verse:

2Ti 1:9 Who saves us and calls us with a holy calling, not in accord with our acts, but in accord with His own purpose and the grace which is given to us in Christ Jesus before times eonian,
It means, before times pertaining to the eons, we were called etc.

And this means God promised us an expectation before the times pertaining to the eons.
Tit 1:2 in expectation of life eonian, which God, Who does not lie, promises before times eonian,

In other words, it was before time was being marked out by the eons. Therefore your idea of “a long, long time ago” does not come close to the inspired words of Scripture. For instance, “a long long time ago” could be a thousand years or less. But before the eons is, well, before Genesis 1:1.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

Actually, you believe you have found “the complete truth”. And you believe it is found “solely” in the Protestant canon. But others here have presented their version of the complete truth - complete with commentary, arguments and Biblical exegesis. Just as the RC, EC and Protestant Churches, believe they have found theirs. Or the Bible Churches, Community Churches and TV evangelists, have described yours. And theologians and Christian philosophers, think they have found theirs. But that’s where they stop. If you want to stop in to their church and find out more - that is fine. Or you wish to turn on the TV and/or radio evangelist - then they do so. If you wish to visit a forum - like this one, you are free to do so.

You remind me very much of the Jehovah Witnesses, knocking at your door, with their “persistent version of Biblical truth”. And I would classify them as religious nuts, zealots, etc. That’s the difference between you and me - and everyone else on this forum, as far as i’m concerned. For my version of Christianity, folks can take it or leave it. It’s actually pretty much orthodox - as far as mainstream churches goes.

But I don’t think God is going to say welcome, you have the “correct doctrine”. And you tried to “shove it down their throats”, like I wished you to. And all those churches, theologians and Christian philosophers - have gotten it wrong. You are “the only one, who saw the real truth.”

Christ asked us to love God, with all our hearts, soul and mind. And to love our neighbor as ourselves. He hung around with the outcasts, sinners, tax collectors, prostitutes, etc. And he told good parables - like the Good Samaritan. Which inspires us to charitable works - like helping the poor, etc. The only ones I see, who think they have the “complete and true understanding” and need to “force it upon others”, are folks like the Unification Church, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Scientists, etc. Those on the fringes - so to speak.

If your belief works for you - go for it. You have “found the truth”, that “no one else has”. But your methods of delivery, continued persistence, etc., will just turn people off. And they will allow you to continue talking - but not hearing. We just won’t have the ears to hear, as the Bible says. And there is only one other person I met here - like yourself. She claimed to be a prophet and had “the full Christian truth”, because she was a “prophetess of God”. She is no longer here and left of her own accord.

And I have a life - outside this forum. Like many people here do. Good luck getting folks to listen. But were all historical figures, who found the truth, right? Some probably had problems of mental illness, organic illness, visions of demons and evil spirits - leading them astray, etc Some are classified as false prophets, wolfs in sheep’s clothing, cultists, mentally ill and deranged, etc.

No Holy Fool theology or P-Zombie philosophy talk here. Just straight talk. Have fun building an audience, congregation, etc. You will need it.

Let me end, by paraphrasing this old, philosophical riddle:

From

“If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”

to

If Eusebius is on a forum and no one listens to him, does he make a sound?

[Eusebius]

Actually, you believe you have found “the complete truth”. And you believe it is found “solely” in the Protestant canon. But others here have presented their version of the complete truth - complete with commentary, arguments and Biblical exegesis. Just as the RC, EC and Protestant Churches, believe they have found theirs. Or the Bible Churches, Community Churches and TV evangelists, have described yours. And theologians and Christian philosophers, think they have found theirs. But that’s where they stop. If you want to stop in to their church and find out more - that is fine. Or you wish to turn on the TV and/or radio evangelist - then they do so. If you wish to visit a forum - like this one, you are free to do so.

I appreciate the freedom to post my thoughts without being put down.
Also, I never said I found “the complete truth.” There are some things I am very sure of. I have studied every side of some of my present positions and so this is why I am very sure of what I do believe.

I feel I need to ask this yet again as I don’t believe it has been answered yet:

What is false concerning:

1. All mankind has a will
2. Man’s will is the will of the flesh
3. Man’s flesh is at enmity to God and cannot please God
4. Man’s will is at enmity to God and cannot please God

Let’s cast aside all the different churches and their beliefs for the moment. I want to hear why YOU, yes YOU believe the above 4 points which the bible states, are wrong.

HFPZ improperly stated: You remind me very much of the Jehovah Witnesses, knocking at your door, with their “persistent version of Biblical truth”. And I would classify them as religious nuts, zealots, etc. That’s the difference between you and me - and everyone else on this forum, as far as i’m concerned. For my version of Christianity, folks can take it or leave it. It’s actually pretty much orthodox - as far as mainstream churches goes.

Sorry but using fallacies such as “guilt by association” doesn’t go very far with me. If you have a cogent argument, I suggest you present it without ad hominums etc. I could just as easily say the same of you but then I’d come down to your level and it proves nothing. Fallacies prove nothing.

But I don’t think God is going to say welcome, you have the “correct doctrine”. And you tried to “shove it down their throats”, like I wished you to. And all those churches, theologians and Christian philosophers - have gotten it wrong. You are “the only one, who saw the real truth.”

At least we can both agree on that. But God does want us to heed what Paul taught from faithful men who are competent to teach others also:

2Ti 2:2 And what things you hear from me through many witnesses, these commit to faithful men, who shall be competent to teach others also."
Since Paul never taught free-will but did teach God’s sovereignty over the affairs of man, it is clear there are a lot of unfaithful and incompetent teachers in the world today.

Christ asked us to love God, with all our hearts, soul and mind. And to love our neighbor as ourselves. He hung around with the outcasts, sinners, tax collectors, prostitutes, etc. And he told good parables - like the Good Samaritan. Which inspires us to charitable works - like helping the poor, etc. The only ones I see, who think they have the “complete and true understanding” and need to “force it upon others”, are folks like the Unification Church, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Scientists, etc. Those on the fringes - so to speak.

Actually Christ commanded as did the law of Moses command that the Jews love God with all their hearts, soul and mind. It wasn’t a nice pithy little request.
Yes, He did hang out with the outcasts and taught them the truth. They were the sick in need of a doctor. He was their doctor. He didn’t tell them truth wasn’t important. It seems to me that if I am guilty of forcing my beliefs upon others just by defending myself then you are just as guilty. Or am I not allowed to defend myself? Should I just roll over and ascent to whatever you say? Is that how message boards are supposed to be?

If your belief works for you - go for it. You have “found the truth”, that “no one else has”.

Again, you get snarky. How can you justify that remark that I have found the truth that no one else has? That is so irritating to have to put up with such remarks as that. I suggested you read “Bondage of the Will” by Martin Luther. You might also read Jonathan Edwards treatise on the will. It is rather deep though. Or you could read works by Calvin or Knoch. So how is it no one else has found the truth? Please don’t make such nasty statements.

But your methods of delivery, continued persistence, etc., will just turn people off. And they will allow you to continue talking - but not hearing. We just won’t have the ears to hear, as the Bible says. And there is only one other person I met here - like yourself. She claimed to be a prophet and had “the full Christian truth”, because she was a “prophetess of God”. She is no longer here and left of her own accord.

I have been very kind to anyone who disagrees with me, unlike your method of delivery and continued persistence. I’m sorry but I thought this was a message board where people are allowed to have back-and-forth communication over what we believe. I didn’t know it was supposed to be like the Nazis where everyone had to all agree to one thing or else.

And I have a life - outside this forum. Like many people here do. Good luck getting folks to listen. But were all historical figures, who found the truth, right? Some probably had problems of mental illness, organic illness, visions of demons and evil spirits - leading them astray, etc Some are classified as false prophets, wolfs in sheep’s clothing, cultists, mentally ill and deranged, etc.

I have a life outside this forum too. What does that have to do with people communicating their beliefs on any given topic on a message board.

No Holy Fool theology or P-Zombie philosophy talk here. Just straight talk. Have fun building an audience, congregation, etc. You will need it.

Nothing but snarky comments from one who can’t handle the truth. Do me a favor and bark up someone else,s tree if you don’t like what I have to share.

Now if you would just answer my question given above rather than your irritating snarky fallacious comments . . . .

Let me end, by paraphrasing this old, philosophical riddle:

From

“If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”

to

If Eusebius is on a forum and no one listens to him, does he make a sound?

If Eusebius asks a question on this forum concerning the will and no one answers it, does it prove his question was never asked?

[anon12438761]

What is false concerning:

1. All mankind has a will
2. Man’s will is the will of the flesh
3. Man’s flesh is at enmity to God and cannot please God
4. Man’s will is at enmity to God and cannot please God

I think your argument is valid, but not sound. Valid as to form; but you have yet to prove that all the premises are true, which is a requirement for a sound argument.

The difficulty(-ies) as I see it, is:
As to 1. Do you mean that each and every human being has ‘a’ will?
As to 2. In your words, what do you mean by ‘flesh’?
As to 3: Is your particular will ‘of the flesh’ ?

Those answers would get us along the path a little further, I think.
Though to be honest, I think the extremes of each pole - as per the thread title - get us all tied up in knots, intellectually. I see no reason at all - scripturally or otherwise - why we cannot have ‘free will’ and God still be in control to the extent He wants to be.