No person can come to Christ by their own freewill !

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
Jn 6:44

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

No man can come here means no man has the ability to come to Christ. That cancels out the myth that man has a freewill,
Nope - it doesn't.

While it's TRUE, that John 6:44 is correct, it's at THAT POINT (being DRAWN BY GOD) that free will comes into play. I was DRAWN many times, and ran back into death each time - until the LAST TIME back in 1963, when, at the end of my rope, and of my own free will, and under conviction of SIN and of judgement, I finally surrendered and Repented, calling on Him to save me.
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
Nope - it doesn't.

While it's TRUE, that John 6:44 is correct, it's at THAT POINT (being DRAWN BY GOD) that free will comes into play. I was DRAWN many times, and ran back into death each time - until the LAST TIME back in 1963, when, at the end of my rope, and of my own free will, and under conviction of SIN and of judgement, I finally surrendered and Repented, calling on Him to save me.
If the person is dead, he has no will to God. To be drawn by God is to be given life first and foremost.
 

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
If the person is dead, he has no will to God. To be drawn by God is to be given life first and foremost.
Where does the Bible say he has no “ will “ ?

Did Jesus say if anyone is willing to come after Me let him deny himself take up his cross and follower me ?
 

preacher4truth

Well-known member
every soul here is IN a body, Flesh,

thus no one is righteous or without sin.

The choice is to follow Him and not be Of it.

That is a choice.

The apostles chose to listen to Him and follow.

many will not.
Pure Gnosticism, no Christianity in the above. The religion of @e v e isn't Christianity, it is purely Pagan.
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
If the person is dead, he has no will to God. To be drawn by God is to be given life first and foremost.
However, the decision toe Surrender, and REPENT remains with the person so effected; unless you're a Calvinist, in which case nobody has any choice about anything.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
However, the decision toe Surrender, and REPENT remains with the person so effected; unless you're a Calvinist, in which case nobody has any choice about anything.

Wow.... You demonstrate that you don't know the first thing about Calvinism, since the bolded statement by you is 100% WRONG.
 

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
However, the decision toe Surrender, and REPENT remains with the person so effected; unless you're a Calvinist, in which case nobody has any choice about anything.
He is a hyper please don’t confuse him with the Calvinist on the forum . I’m undecided and open to both arminians and calvinists but surely not the hypers. I can be objective because I have no horse in the race. I’m not against either group.
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
He is a hyper please don’t confuse him with the Calvinist on the forum . I’m undecided and open to both arminians and calvinists but surely not the hypers. I can be objective because I have no horse in the race. I’m not against either group.

Hyper is the only logically consistent Calvinism.

What is a compatibilistic "free will" that has no real power of choice on its own but is in one way or another completely determined, no matter how convolutely you phrase it like a snake oil salesman or something about "acting according to their nature under secondary causes under the secret will of God"? It's like they think if you throw the word "free" in there and make the source so convoluted you can't readily see it anymore, than somehow God's decree isn't the source of the choice... kinda.

Either God decrees your choice, or you have the ability to choose, that's the only logical options.
 

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
Hyper is the only logically consistent Calvinism.

What is a compatibilistic "free will" that has no real power of choice on its own but is in one way or another completely determined, no matter how convolutely you phrase it like a snake oil salesman or something about "acting according to their nature under secondary causes under the secret will of God"? It's like they think if you throw the word "free" in there and make the source so convoluted you can't readily see it anymore, than somehow God's decree isn't the source of the choice... kinda.

Either God decrees your choice, or you have the ability to choose, that's the only logical options.
I guess it depends upon a persons definition of freedom and what that looks like in relation to God.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Hyper is the only logically consistent Calvinism.

That's simply not true.

What is a compatibilistic "free will" that has no real power of choice on its own but is in one way or another completely determined,

Here is your error.

You conflate "choice" with "determination" (they are not the same thing).
And you conflate "choice" (a noun) with "choose" (a verb).

We have wills.
Because we have wills, we "choose" things (based on our wills).
We don't DETERMINE our wills, but we "choose" based on our wills.

Men are not "dragged, kicking and screaming against their will", wanting to be saved, and being condemned instead. No, they CHOOSE hell.

Men are not "dragged, kicking and screaming against their will", to be saved if they don't want to be. No, they CHOOSE to be saved.

If you agree that men have wills, you CANNOT deny that we "choose", based on those wills.

no matter how convolutely you phrase it like a snake oil salesman or something

Insulting ad hominem duly noted.
 

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
That's simply not true.



Here is your error.

You conflate "choice" with "determination" (they are not the same thing).
And you conflate "choice" (a noun) with "choose" (a verb).

We have wills.
Because we have wills, we "choose" things (based on our wills).
We don't DETERMINE our wills, but we "choose" based on our wills.

Men are not "dragged, kicking and screaming against their will", wanting to be saved, and being condemned instead. No, they CHOOSE hell.

Men are not "dragged, kicking and screaming against their will", to be saved if they don't want to be. No, they CHOOSE to be saved.

If you agree that men have wills, you CANNOT deny that we "choose", based on those wills.



Insulting ad hominem duly noted.
I like this explanation about the will and choice. Thank you Theo1689.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I like this explanation about the will and choice. Thank you Theo1689.

Well, here's the thing.
That poster believes in "autonomous free will".
So he simply ASSUMES (based on nothing) that we "determine" our own "choices".

So when he says, Calvinism is not possible, what he is ACTUALLY saying is, "Calvinism does not fit my personal free will paradigm", and nobody said it did. But as long as he can't prove that humans have "autonomous free will", he can't logically use it to condemn Calvinism.

Thank you for the kind words...
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
However, the decision toe Surrender, and REPENT remains with the person so effected; unless you're a Calvinist, in which case nobody has any choice about anything.
Nothing you can do if you dead. If they are alive, the choice was made for them. Lazarus didn't make a choice to become alive from the dead, That was Jesus choice to save him from death.
 
Top