Also how would new jerusalem be defined? Is it the entirety of the new earth? Or a part of it where some have extra spiritual blessings? Could it not be taken as an allotment on the new earth?
1 Like
I agree that “freewill” is a misleading phrase & L Ray Smith’s contention was that if we don’t have freewill then how can we be responsible for not believing? Smith’s contention was that we are accountable but not responsible yet God himself takes responsibility in the end.
Ive watched a few of his videos but not all of them.
The good stuff is on his website including a series called “The Myth of Freewill”
Ill check it out for sure. Like DaveB said earlier free will vs Gods sovereignty has been a debate for a long time and I doubt Im the man smart enough to end it 
Or would it be the L, not the P, in TULIP, that you would drop:
T otal Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)
U nconditional Election
L imited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)
I rresistible Grace
P erseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)
BTW, there was a long discussion here not long ago re freewill where i took the side of “Calvinistic Universalism”, as in a sort of 3 or 4 point Calvinism:
See also Four Point Calvinism or, if you prefer, Amyraldism:
1 Like
Dang it! I always mix up the L and the P for some reason. haha. And yeah I have no problem with 4 point calvanists. Its the 5 point calvanists who make no sense to me.
Ive always seen the debate between calvanist and armenians like this.
Calvanist believe God is able but not willing to save all
And armenians believe God is willing but not able
But both ignore the verses stating that God is willing and able to save all.
That is good food for thought, along with your other posts on the BOL.
Thank you.
1 Like
Anytime! I always enjoy civil discussion 
Further to the BOL, you might be interested sometime in reading how some conccordant.org authors, who are dispensationist deterministist (anti libertarian freewill) universalists, handle the topic. I’ve posted extensive notes on the topic here: Book of life
Ill definitely check it out. Ive been reading more concordant publishing since you nudged me in their direction.
"That the other nations are not within its walls
is further shown by the statements that the nations will
be walking by means of its light, and that their glory and
confined to the Circumcision 147
honor will be carried into it (Un. 21:24, 26). The situ
ation here seems very clear. Israel within the city, the
nations without. One written in the scroll of life, the
other kept out by the lack of such an honor."
So Im assuming from that passage, unless Im misunderstanding it, that the concordant publisher also see the new jerusalem as an allotment and honor but not the end all be all of life .
Steve, is it our WILL that is limited by a million factors? Or is it our ACTIONS?
We can will even to flap our arms and fly. But we cannot accomplish what we want to do because of natural limiting factors. I suggest that these limiting factors limit our actions, but not our wills.
No, the idea of salvation is different from all of the Calvinist and Arminian positions. First of all, you have to understand that salvation in the scripture, has different meanings.
See this:
[http://www.pantelism.com/redemption/redemption.html
AFAIK it’s described as a city, there are nations outside of it, & it comes down from heaven towards earth, so i assume it doesn’t take up the whole new earth, if it even lands on earth. If people not written in the book of life can never enter it (Rv.21:27) & only those who receive eonian life enter, then many will never enter the city. Robin Parry seems to assume that means they’ll never be saved, but is that necessarily the case? Why couldn’t those in the lake of fire be saved without ever entering the city? Why couldn’t they be saved in the lake of fire, or on the earth outside the city, or in the heavenly spheres? Furthermore, where is it written that the city lasts forever?
1 Like
I was giving general synopsis of their thinking.
I looked at that article, and to a certain extent I agree, that salvation can have different meanings depending on whom and what it is referencing. However where does Pauls meaning of salvation for all come in? Namely vivification (immortality) , justification, and deliverance from corruption?
Its our will being limited. And ive used scripture and shown external factors that severely limit our will.
And Im not trying to pester you but I really want to know how someone who believes in free will would reconcile verses that state the exact opposite;
"But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? "Shall what is FORMED say to the ONE WHO FORMED IT, ‘Why did you MAKE ME like this?’“Does not the POTTER have the right to MAKE from the same lump of clay one vessel for special occasions and another for common use?…” The potter makes vessels of honor or dishonor.
“for to vanity was the creation MADE SUBJECT – NOT OF ITS OWN WILL, but BECAUSE of HIM who DID SUBJECT it – in hope,” Did we have a choice to be subjected to vanity by default?
“for GOD did SHUT UP together the whole to unbelief, that to the whole He might do kindness.” Did we have a choice to be shut up in disbelief by default?
“‘HE hath BLINDED their eyes, and hardened their heart, that they might not see with the eyes, and understand with the heart, and turn back, and I might heal them;’” Did they have a choice to be blinded or hardened?
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is NOT FROM YOURSELVES, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.” Did we have a choice to have faith? or was it given?
Theres a few others but those should be a sufficient start.
Paul was talking about the creation there, right?
I think the teaching is that we were already sinners by act and in will.
It was a gift that was offered, right? We chose to accept or not?
I’m not trying to be persnickety either, but the subject allows for various explanations and is more subtle than these verses seem to show.
I dont think its subtle at all.
When it says God subjects humanity then I take it as it is at face value. Wether it be blinding them, hardening their hearts, subjecting them to vanity, making them either a vessel of honor or dishonor,Choosing whom to give faith to, etc.
And as for us choosing faith, well then you are contributing to your salvation. How much of the 100% saved by God would you knock off and attribute to yourself.
Personally, and I dont mean to offend here, but free will to me is in a sense worshiping creation as their own gods. That isnt to say that they dont love God, but they arent seeing God as truly God. And not giving God the credit of being subjector and taking His disclosure of “working ALL things in the counsel of His will” at face value. Is He working all things in accord with His will? or only some?
Can clay do anything apart from a potters hand?